Thoughts on the purported "secularization" of BYU

[Doctor Steuss]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

No.  That's not it.  At all.

Since there's a drive to cling to dichotomous thinking on this topic, perhaps a metaphor using black and white will help.

Let's say someone makes the claim that only black and white exist.  I point out that there are hundreds of shades of gray.  That doesn't mean the categories of black and white cease to exist.  That would be a pretty silly position to hold.  A lot of those grays can be categorized into being more "black," or more "white," but they are still grays.  Some, using a particular lighting, or viewing angle, might be more black, but using a different viewing criteria become more white.  Some grays can't be classified into either category without ignoring aspects of them.  That doesn't mean that there's only one shade of gray any more than it means that black and white have ceased to exist.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

No.  That's not it.  At all.

Since there's a drive to cling to dichotomous thinking on this topic, perhaps a metaphor using black and white will help.

Let's say someone makes the claim that only black and white exist.  I point out that there are hundreds of shades of gray.  That doesn't mean the categories of black and white cease to exist.  That would be a pretty silly position to hold.  A lot of those grays can be categorized into being more "black," or more "white," but they are still grays.  Some, using a particular lighting, or viewing angle, might be more black, but using a different viewing criteria become more white.  Some grays can't be classified into either category without ignoring aspects of them.  That doesn't mean that there's only one shade of gray any more than it means that black and white have ceased to exist.

I understand the metaphor.  Respectfully, it does not apply to human biology.  There are only two sexes, male and female.  There is no "spectrum," nor is there a third sex.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Doctor Steuss]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I understand the metaphor.  Respectfully, it does not apply to human biology.  There are only two sexes, male and female.  There is no "spectrum," nor is there a third sex.

Thanks,

-Smac

What sex is a true hermaphrodite (i.e. full ovotesticular DSD)?  Let's say they are 46XX, but have a transmigrated SRY gene, so they also have a fully formed penis.  What if a person has ovotesticular DSD and 46,XY, but there's been SRY deletion? 

I mean there are only two sexes, so this should be really easy.  If someone has both testicles and ovaries, are they male of female?
 

Edited February 25, 2025 by Doctor Steuss

[Analytics]

7 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

What sex is a true hermaphrodite (i.e. full ovotesticular DSD)?  Let's say they are 46XX, but have a transmigrated SRY gene, so they also have a fully formed penis.  What if a person has ovotesticular DSD and 46,XY, but there's been SRY deletion? 

Male of female?
 

He can’t say because he doesn’t know what a woman is.

[Analytics]

32 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

The clinical, real-world reality is that not everyone neatly fits into either a “male” box or a “female” box. Your inability to know whether Emily Quinn is a man or a woman proves my point. 

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

Personally, I don’t harbor any so-called “trans ideology” beyond the belief that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, and that medical decisions are best left to doctors and patients. If somebody says, “I feel like I’m a woman on the inside and would prefer you refer to me with she/her pronouns” I’ll shrug my shoulders and try to humor them.

I just think it is incredibly ironic that you, somebody who believes being a male or a female on the inside is actually a thing, and who ostensibly believes you can learn the truth of spiritual things through spiritual means, is adamantly opposed to the idea that you could learn the sex of your spirit by listening to the spirit.

Seeing the irony in your position doesn’t mean I have some sort of ideology.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Wow, I can't 🤣

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

Detractors?  Why are you thinking I am sympathizing with “detractors” (detractors of what?) rather than addressing what I see as weaknesses in an argument?

I am talking about this discussion today only which has been relatively focused except for Smac’s comments and that one of Analytics.  People don’t always argue for the same purpose, even with the same person.  At times they may be focused on presenting one position they have, at other times another, a third time they may be more focused on critiquing another’s argument and not thinking that much about their own position.

Mindreading motivations into comments, assuming someone’s focus is something they haven’t mentioned, putting words in others’ mouths are not ways to effectively communicate.

Smac has, I believe, created a strawman (possibly more than one).  All I was saying above was that people will get distracted and respond to the strawman rather than stay focused on their topics which might give the impression the strawman is their actual argument when it isn’t.

Another way of saying what I am thinking might be happening is that if someone keeps saying “you really want to talk about the black cat in the corner of the room”, eventually people will comment about the cat (especially if they think it’s more in the center of the room, don’t see it as black, or even have doubts about its existence) even if they hadn’t been thinking about it in the first place.

Edited February 25, 2025 by Calm

[smac97]

On 2/25/2025 at 1:34 PM, Analytics said:

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. 

So you kinda sorta deny the sexual binary (two sexes), but also disclaim any notions of a third sex.

I'll leave you to your reasoning.

On 2/25/2025 at 1:34 PM, Analytics said:

This is really interesting. It turns out you are the one who doesn’t know what a woman is!

I do.  A woman is an adult human female.  Ipso facto, a human male is not a woman.

On 2/25/2025 at 1:34 PM, Analytics said:

If you did, you’d be able to look at what we know about Emily Quinn and know which box she belongs in.

Generally, most human beings can readily differentiate between men and women (the current ideological battle over sex/gender is a curiously patchwork phenomenon, existing in some countries/cultures, and absent in others). 

There are some exceedingly rare instances where a person's biological sex is epistemically uncertain.

There are also more common instances where men dress up as women, undergo medical procedures to approximate - with varying degrees of success - the outward appearance of a woman.  

On 2/25/2025 at 1:34 PM, Analytics said:

In practice, intersex specialists focus on managing real medical needs and supporting patient well-being, not deciding the correct underlying label.

Okay.

On 2/25/2025 at 1:34 PM, Analytics said:

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.

A few errors here.

First, you are equating or confusing medical treatment with biological classification.  Medical treatment generally focuses on, well, treatment, which may or may not involve determining biological classification (a cut needing stitches is not dependent on biological sex, but a suspected case of endometriosis is entirely dependent on biological sex). The fact that doctors focus on patient care rather than classification does not mean that sex is not binary.

Second, a medical condition which requires medical intervention does not negate the binary framework, nor does it create a third sex or a "spectrum" of sexes.  A person born with a congenital heart defect still has a heart and is still classified as having a circulatory system.  Similarly, someone with a DSD still falls within the sexual binary (the male or female reproductive framework), even if medical intervention is needed.

Third, I think you are making up most of the above paragraph.  Sex is objectively determined by reproductive structure.  It's not an "unseen" truth.  Chromosomal sex (XX or XY) does not disappear because of atypical development (DSDs).  Even when markers are in conflict, such as ambiguous genitalia or hormonal differences, every individual still derives from one of the two reproductive pathways (sperm-producing or egg-producing).  Man or woman.  Male or female.  Not both.  Not neither.

Fourth, contrary to your claim, my understanding is that doctors do classify patients as male or female in most cases—even with DSDs—because it guides medical treatment (e.g., hormone therapy, potential fertility options, long-term health monitoring).

Fifth, your "don’t assume an unseen, absolute M-or-F truth" claim is really interesting.  Sex is not an arbitrary label to be "assigned" (or ignored).  It is, instead, an ontological biological reality rooted in reproductive function.  Just because a trait is difficult to observe does not mean it does not exist.  Your claim therefore misrepresents the role of medical classification.  Doctors do not deny or ignore biological sex, they simply work within its framework to treat patients effectively.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 30, 2025 by smac97

[Doctor Steuss]

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I just think it is incredibly ironic that you, somebody who believes being a male or a female on the inside is actually a thing, and who ostensibly believes you can learn the truth of spiritual things through spiritual means, is adamantly opposed to the idea that you could learn the sex of your spirit by listening to the spirit.

Seeing the irony in your position doesn’t mean I have some sort of ideology.

I can’t help but find mild amusement, that if Smac’s position is reality, there are going to be people who grew up as women, and even got married to a husband in the temple, who will get to the Celestial Kingdom to discover that because they had an XY chromosomal pair, they were actually in a gay marriage, are de facto divorced now, and will now spend eternity as an unmarried man who will have to repent for breaking the Law of Chastity.

Edited February 25, 2025 by Doctor Steuss

[smac97]

On 2/25/2025 at 1:59 PM, Analytics said:

The clinical, real-world reality is that not everyone neatly fits into either a “male” box or a “female” box.

Again with the "neatly" thing.

Yes, a tiny percentage of people have epistemically uncertainties about their biological sex, most of which instances are resolved through further testing.  And in all instances, such persons eventually "fit" into either one or other other of the boxes, because there are no other boxes.  No third sex, no endless "spectrum" of sexes.

Meanwhile, the other 99.99% of people do, in fact, "neatly" and unambiguously fit into the "male" or "female" boxes.  This includes most of those with Gender Dysphoria.

On 2/25/2025 at 1:59 PM, Analytics said:

Your inability to know whether Emily Quinn is a man or a woman proves my point. 

I don't think so.

On 2/25/2025 at 1:59 PM, Analytics said:

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

Well, no.  The sexual binary exists regardless of what the Church has to say about it.

The sexual binary exists regardless of ideologies trying to argue that it does not, that there is a third sex, or that there is only an endless "spectrum" of sexes.

On 2/25/2025 at 1:59 PM, Analytics said:

Personally, I don’t harbor any so-called “trans ideology” beyond the belief that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect,

This is also my sentiment.

But "treated with dignity and respect" should not, in my view, include ignoring/denying biological reality (the sexual binary), nor should it involve having men into women's sports, changing rooms, bathrooms, prisons, etc.

On 2/25/2025 at 1:59 PM, Analytics said:

If somebody says, “I feel like I’m a woman on the inside and would prefer you refer to me with she/her pronouns” I’ll shrug my shoulders and try to humor them.

Mostly, so would I.  But if and when the request become a demand, or becomes a law, becomes compelled speech, becomes men competing in women's sports, etc., then I think we need to oppose such things.

See, e.g., this news item from Minnesota: 

On the horizon: Non-binary pronouns in 3rd-grade classrooms

Quote

Starting this fall for the 2025-26 school year, Minnesota’s public schools will be required to teach third-graders how to use non-binary gender pronouns in writing sentences.

"{R}equired to teach third-graders how to use non-binary gender pronouns."

Quote

The Minnesota Department of Education’s new K-12 English Language Arts (ELA) standards and benchmarks were adopted in 2023 and are scheduled for full implementation at the beginning of the 2025-26 school year. Reviewed and revised on a 10-year cycle, Minnesota’s ELA standards and benchmarks are organized into three strands: 1) reading, 2) writing, and 3) listening, speaking, viewing, and exchanging ideas.

Under the writing strand, a third-grade benchmark requires students to “use nouns (collective and irregular plural), verbs, frequently used adjectives and adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, and pronouns (including reflexive pronouns and male, female and non-binary gender pronouns) [emphasis added] in simple and compound sentences authentically in writing.” (3.2.1.3)

According to state statutes, K-12 benchmarks identify the “specific knowledge or skill that a student must master to complete part of an academic standard by the end of the grade level or grade band.”

The third-grade benchmark is the only reference to “non-binary gender pronouns” in the standards and benchmarks. Other benchmarks require students to use pronouns in writing, noting that they will “buil[d] on skills from previous years.”

Students will be tested on these new ELA standards spring 2026, when the MCA-IV is first administered.

IOW, students who do not use these ideological neologisms will, it seems, be punished grade-wise.

On 2/25/2025 at 1:59 PM, Analytics said:

I just think it is incredibly ironic that you, somebody who believes being a male or a female on the inside is actually a thing, and who ostensibly believes you can learn the truth of spiritual things through spiritual means, is adamantly opposed to the idea that you could learn the sex of your spirit by listening to the spirit.

This is not an accurate statement of my position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 27, 2025 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I understand the metaphor

 

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So you kinda sorta deny the sexual binary (two sexes), but also disclaim any notions of a third sex.

I’m pretty sure you don’t understand. 

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Quote

I understand the metaphor.  Respectfully, it does not apply to human biology.  There are only two sexes, male and female.  There is no "spectrum," nor is there a third sex.

What sex is a true hermaphrodite (i.e. full ovotesticular DSD)?  Let's say they are 46XX, but have a transmigrated SRY gene, so they also have a fully formed penis.  What if a person has ovotesticular DSD and 46,XY, but there's been SRY deletion? 

I mean there are only two sexes, so this should be really easy.  If someone has both testicles and ovaries, are they male of female?

DSDs inherently introduce some degree of ambiguity.  Nevertheless, every individual with OT-DSD is still biologically classifiable as either male or female based on their underlying reproductive pathway.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

DSDs inherently introduce some degree of ambiguity.  Nevertheless, every individual with OT-DSD is still biologically classifiable as either male or female based on their underlying reproductive pathway.

Thanks,

-Smac

What exactly the reproductive pathway for an individual with testes where the ovaries should go and a functioning vagina??

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

I can’t help but find mild amusement, that if Smac’s position is reality, there are going to be people who grew up as women, and even got married to a husband in the temple, who will get to the Celestial Kingdom to discover that because they had an XX chromosomal pair, they were actually in a gay marriage, are de facto divorced now, and will now spend eternity as an unmarried man who will have to repent for breaking the Law of Chastity.

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

He kept the law of Chastity and the marriage covenant the best he knew how according to available evidence. He'll be fine.

What kind of god do you worship?? 😳

[Analytics]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do.  A woman is an adult human female.  Ipso facto, a human male is not a woman.

That is circular and doesn’t give us any way of telling whether Emily Quinn is a man or a woman. 

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, you are equating or confusing medical treatment with biological classification.  Medical treatment generally focuses on, well, treatment, may or may not involve determining biological classification...

The point is that the people whom we would presume are qualified to make the classification you insist must be made don’t agree with you about how rigid the classification system is and don’t think it applies to everyone.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, a medical condition which requires medical intervention does not negate the binary framework, nor does it create a third sex or a "spectrum" of sexes.  A person born with a congenital heart defect still has a heart and is still classified as having a circulatory system.  Similarly, someone with a DSD still falls within the sexual binary (the male or female reproductive framework), even if medical intervention is needed.

I'm not talking about medical conditions that require intervention. I’m talking about the doctors of people who don’t fit into the binary clarification system. Presumably, they are the ones you think are qualified to categorize people, but they are also the ones who deny the applicability of the binary system to those situations.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sex is objectively determined by reproductive structure.

So objectively, is somebody like Emily Quinn who has both a vagina and has balls a “man” or a “woman”? She and her doctors claim that she doesn’t fit into either category and is better thought of as “intersex.” You are adamant that they are wrong and only say that because of their ideology. So if they are wrong, is she a man or a woman? 

[Doctor Steuss]

1 minute ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

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

He kept the law of Chastity and the marriage covenant the best he knew how according to available evidence. He'll be fine.

What kind of god do you worship?? 😳

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

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

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

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

[Analytics]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, a tiny percentage of people have epistemically uncertainties about their biological sex, most of which instances are resolved through further testing.  And in all instances, such persons eventually "fit" into either one or other other of the boxes, because there are no other boxes.  No third sex, no endless "spectrum" of sexes.

Just to be clear, you are talking about their sex after they are dead, right?

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, the other 99.99% of people do, in fact, "neatly" and unambiguously fit into the "male" or "female" boxes.  This includes most of those with Gender Dysphoria.

It's funny how you keep saying you don’t want to talk about that.

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

 

I just think it is incredibly ironic that you, somebody who believes being a male or a female on the inside is actually a thing, and who ostensibly believes you can learn the truth of spiritual things through spiritual means, is adamantly opposed to the idea that you could learn the sex of your spirit by listening to the spirit.

 

This is not an accurate statement of my position.

So, if somebody who is biologically a man but deeply feels with every fiber of his being that on the inside his spirit is really that of a woman, you’d be open to the possibility that his spirit really is female?

[Doctor Steuss]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

DSDs inherently introduce some degree of ambiguity.  Nevertheless, every individual with OT-DSD is still biologically classifiable as either male or female based on their underlying reproductive pathway.

Thanks,

-Smac

Please define what you mean by "underlying reproductive pathway."  

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I do.  A woman is an adult human female.  Ipso facto, a human male is not a woman.

That is circular

Well, no.

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

and doesn’t give us any way of telling whether Emily Quinn is a man or a woman. 

I was not speaking of Emily Quinn.

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The point is that the people whom we would presume are qualified to make the classification you insist must be made don’t agree with you about how rigid the classification system is and don’t think it applies to everyone.

I think you're making this up.

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Second, a medical condition which requires medical intervention does not negate the binary framework, nor does it create a third sex or a "spectrum" of sexes.  A person born with a congenital heart defect still has a heart and is still classified as having a circulatory system.  Similarly, someone with a DSD still falls within the sexual binary (the male or female reproductive framework), even if medical intervention is needed.

I'm not talking about medical conditions that require intervention.

DSDs typically require medical intervention to some extent.  Absent a DSD, biological sex is not in question.  Ipso facto, a man cannot become a woman by "identifying" as one, or by undergoing medical procedures to gain some approximation of the outward appearances of a woman.  

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I’m talking about the doctors of people who don’t fit into the binary clarification system.

There are no such people.  Everyone fits into the "binary classification system."  There is no third sex outside of it, nor is there an endless "spectrum" of sexes.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 25, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Yes, a tiny percentage of people have epistemically uncertainties about their biological sex, most of which instances are resolved through further testing.  And in all instances, such persons eventually "fit" into either one or other other of the boxes, because there are no other boxes.  No third sex, no endless "spectrum" of sexes.

Just to be clear, you are talking about their sex after they are dead, right?

No.  Biological sex in the here and now, and also in the hereafter.

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Meanwhile, the other 99.99% of people do, in fact, "neatly" and unambiguously fit into the "male" or "female" boxes.  This includes most of those with Gender Dysphoria.

It's funny how you keep saying you don’t want to talk about that.

I don't know that I said I "don't want to talk about" Gender Dysphoria.  I have many times.  I would just prefer that this topic not be smuggled in under the pretext of concern about people with DSDs.

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

So, if somebody who is biologically a man but deeply feels with every fiber of his being that on the inside his spirit is really that of a woman, you’d be open to the possibility that his spirit really is female?

No.

Similarly, if someone who is biologically human "but deeply feels with every fiber of his being that on the inside his spirit is really that of" a dog, or a dragon, or a space alien, I would not be open to the possibility of these things.  It's just too incongruent with my grasp of reality, common sense, and revealed principles.

I have found this comment from Michael Ash very helpful:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

Using all four legs of the stool to the best of my capability, I would conclude that the individual is dealing with a mental disorder, and lacks a grasp of ontological reality as to spiritual matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 25, 2025 by smac97

[Analytics]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was not speaking of Emily Quinn....

Everyone fits into the "binary classification system." 

So, would it be fair to say that your position is that Emily Quinn fits into the binary classification system, but as far as you know, nobody knows where she fits?

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

He kept the law of Chastity and the marriage covenant the best he knew how according to available evidence. He'll be fine.

I agree.

But will he have an eternal marriage with the man he is sealed to?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

So, would it be fair to say that your position is that Emily Quinn fits into the binary classification system, but as far as you know, nobody knows where she fits?

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

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Please define what you mean by "underlying reproductive pathway."  

The "Male Pathway" occurs via SRY gene activation, which leads to testes development, testosterone production, and male genital differentiation.

The "Female Pathway" occurs via the absence of SRY, which results in ovarian development, estrogen-driven feminization, and female genital differentiation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Doctor Steuss]

Just now, smac97 said:

The "Male Pathway" occurs via SRY gene activation, which leads to testes development, testosterone production, and male genital differentiation.

The "Female Pathway" occurs via the absence of SRY, which results in ovarian development, estrogen-driven feminization, and female genital differentiation.

Thanks,

-Smac

So, if someone is XX chromosome, but the SRY gene migrated, they are male, correct?

And if someone is XY chromosome, has an SRY gene, but it's been deactivated, then...?  The SRY gene is there.  So, there's no absence which makes it so they aren't female, but it isn't activated which makes it so they aren't male.  So which are they?

If someone has an SRY Gene, it's been deactivated, and has both ovaries and testicles, then where do they fall in the binary classification?  They have both types of gonads, the presence of an SRY gene but not activated.  Male or female under your binary classification system?

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again with the "neatly" thing.

Yes, a tiny percentage of people have epistemically uncertainties about their biological sex, most of which instances are resolved through further testing.  And in all instances, such persons eventually "fit" into either one or other other of the boxes, because there are no other boxes.  No third sex, no endless "spectrum" of sexes.

Meanwhile, the other 99.99% of people do, in fact, "neatly" and unambiguously fit into the "male" or "female" boxes.  This includes most of those with Gender Dysphoria.

I don't think so.

Well, no.  The sexual binary exists regardless of what the Church has to say about it.

The sexual binary exists regardless of ideologies trying to argue that it does not, that there is a third sex, or that there is only an endless "spectrum" of sexes.

This is also my sentiment.

But "treated with dignity and respect" should not, in my view, include ignoring/denying biological reality (the sexual binary), nor should it involve having men into women's sports, changing rooms, bathrooms, prisons, etc.

Mostly, so would I.  But if and when the request become a demand, or becomes a law, becomes compelled speech, becomes men competing in women's sports, etc., then I think we need to oppose such things.

This is not an accurate statement of my position.

Thanks,

-Smac

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

Currently, the Church holds that, "In extremely rare circumstances, a baby is born with genitals that are not clearly male or female (ambiguous genitalia, sexual ambiguity, or intersex)." We see that there are yet other scientific bases (metabolic, hormonal, genetic/chromosomal, tissue/organ-level chimerism and others) that identify on a finer level other attributes that may render the interpretation of the baby's gender unclear. I think the current policy can be applied to these situations. Gender dysphoria is even more complex, and despite being identified much further along than infancy, could still be addressed though the basic prayer-counsel-keys approach used for the original policy.

What is at issue?