Former Stake President Excommunicated for being a woman.

[_EAllusion]

As I mentioned upthread, I don't see anything inherent to the LDS faith that demands that someone born with a penis must spiritually be male. When an LDS thinks that some people have same sex desires as a burden of their mortal condition, they can just as easily think that some people can be born with the medical problem of having the wrong physical body for their spiritual gender.

Because LDS track closely with general American fundamentalist views on social issues, you expect hostility to transgendered people, but if they wanted to they could imagine that spiritually men and women are sometimes burdened with wrong genitalia, while also recognizing this is fortunately a partially treatable problem. Trans acceptance is lagging acceptance of same sex orientation, but I fully expect this to be a common view among LDS youth in the not too distant future.

The real issue with the SP then would be the SP not doing things women are required to do in the faith, such as not have real ecclesiastical authority.

LDS probably are committed to overly simplistic and wrong ideas about gender being binary and that would get them into hot water in other cases, but in a straightfoward example of a male-to-female transition, this should be something the faith has no problem incorporating.

[_Jersey Girl]

...

good grief, Jersey Girl, point me to the specific comment already. I looked back and tried to find something I missed and just didn't see it.

You can scroll through the posts like a normal person or not. It's all the same to me.

[_EAllusion]

Why doesn't it follow? How is to more helpful to think of it in this way. And when you say "social and medical problem," what does this mean, specifically?

The medical problem is having primary and secondary sexual characteristics that do not match one's gender expectations. The psychological dissonance this creates can be harmful. The social problem is displaying behavior that may not conform to others gender role expectations and cause them to discriminate in subtle and overt ways. Both these things can cause distress, even extreme distress. Look up the suicide attempt rate of transgendered youth before they turn 18. It's a crisis that has likely been going on for much longer than anyone thought to track it. Fixing this primarily involves resolving the medical problem, therapeutic distress tolerance, and advocacy for social change.

It doesn't follow because there's no inherent reason to think the problem is in the mind (the brain really) and not other parts of the body. The argument simply does not follow. It's more helpful to think of the reverse because one's innate mental identity is more fundamental to our sense of what person is and trying to change it as a practical matter produces far worse outcomes than the reverse.

Based on your posts in this thread, I imagine you would then argue something to the effect of, "Well, what if I think I'm a dolphin? How about that!?" While I'm not big on treating people wrongly merely because they assume the personal identity they wish to assume, I think right now we are narrowly looking at a specific biological issue wherein people's mental sexuality innate fails to correspond to how they were sexed at birth. That doesn't happen with otherkin. There is a complex philosophical debate over the nature of personal identity we could indulge in, but it's beyond the scope of the problem in this case.

[_EAllusion]

As I mentioned upthread, I don't see anything inherent to the LDS faith that demands that someone born with a penis must spiritually be male. When an LDS thinks that some people have same sex desires as a burden of their mortal condition, they can just as easily think that some people can be born with the medical problem of having the wrong physical body for their spiritual gender.

Because LDS track closely with general American fundamentalist views on social issues, you expect hostility to transgendered people, but if they wanted to they could imagine that spiritually men and women are sometimes burdened with wrong genitalia, while also recognizing this is fortunately a partially treatable problem. Trans acceptance is lagging acceptance of same sex orientation, but I fully expect this to be a common view among LDS youth in the not too distant future.

The real issue with the SP then would be the SP not doing things women are required to do in the faith, such as not have real ecclesiastical authority.

LDS probably are committed to overly simplistic and wrong ideas about gender being binary and that would get them into hot water in other cases, but in a straightfoward example of a male-to-female transition, this should be something the faith has no problem incorporating.

Theologically, I think this could work out. But it's also pretty advanced and would need justification that doesn't presently exist. The church isn't going to adopt a rule that applies to the outliers in the population. Exceptions to the rule would get submitted to the Q15, as is already the case.

I am not opposed to the idea that a person could be born in the wrong body. I simply haven't seen any credible evidence to support it. And either way, whether they were literally born that way in terms of biology, or whether it's in their head, something is wrong. When I say it's in their head I'm not suggesting they have control over it. That it's their fault. No more than any other mental disorder. One way or another, some wiring is screwed up. Soft wiring you at least have a chance to fix. But it is a screw up regardless, that's beyond debate. And this is what I'm having a hard time with. I see the collective reaction to these very rare situations as creating more problems in the big picture.

The outliers already exist outside of transgender issues. Some people are born intersex. This necessarily requires a Church who thinks people are either eternally male or female spirits to accept that they can be born with bodies that don't fully correspond to their spiritual gender.

What about people born with androgen insensitivity syndrome? People can be born with XY chromosomes but external female sexual characteristics due to that condition. If you declare them male or female, either way, the body doesn't fully correspond to that designation.

[_Jersey Girl]

I am not opposed to the idea that a person could be born in the wrong body. I simply haven't seen any credible evidence to support it. And either way, whether they were literally born that way in terms of biology, or whether it's in their head, something is wrong. When I say it's in their head I'm not suggesting they have control over it. That it's their fault. No more than any other mental disorder. One way or another, some wiring is screwed up. Soft wiring you at least have a chance to fix. But it is a screw up regardless, that's beyond debate. And this is what I'm having a hard time with. I see the collective reaction to these very rare situations as creating more problems in the big picture.

Picking this up again. It's not only the idea of a person being born in the wrong body. I think it's far more complicated than that. For example, I pointed out to you (or tried to) that the world isn't divided up into three gender classifications: male, female and hermaphrodite.

There are children born with ambiguous genitalia or intersexed, where upon birth a parent or doctor would decide which gender they were. What if in this case, the doctor or parent errors in their determination and the child grows up feeling that their physical characteristics do not match what their brain tells them they are?

When you think about that it, it only begs the question, "Are there human beings born with less evident internal factors (I think EA mentioned brain states) that do not naturally match their external characteristics, and if so, why are we not making the connections as a society with regard to the social, emotional, psychological conflict that leads them to feel they can never gain control over the conflict because society doesn't understand who they are, why they are, and why that leads so many youth to suicide?"

Is it really our right to decide for another human being what gender they are? Do you see how it's not a reasonable and even a dangerous position for us to dictate gender identity to another human being based on what is viewable when we well, when we're too damn lazy to do the research (because it's easier to judge and dictate, than it is to think and reason) and admit that these are highly complex issues and challenges based on which ever increasing numbers of youth are killing themselves over because the rest of the world is largely indifferent to their struggle?

Don't shoot me for the run on sentences. I like to think of them more as sermons or lectures.

;-)

[_Lemmie]

Your partner, EAllusion, seems to be on the front lines of this, at least re: youth; I'd be interested in hearing any further opinions they have about affirmative care.

She works in acute care, so that is about getting people past immediate crises such as being actively suicidal. She's not involved in long-term mental health services for people who are transgender or gender non-conforming.

I worked with a developmentally disabled person who transitioned from female to male for a period of time. The social and medical process involved is complex, long, and filled with cautious, deliberate pauses. Affirmative care referred to in your link is just standard practice. Treating transgender people by trying to make them conform to the sex assigned to them at birth has no place in modern care and has all the respectability of gay raparative therapy. It's both morally wrong and yields poor outcomes. The goal should be to treat distress caused by incongruence or social stigma when present.

Thank you for your feedback and empathy, EAllusion, especially your last couple of sentences--extremely informative for those looking to learn about this situation.

Water Dog is off the ranch if he cares at all what the state of psychological science is. I'm not convinced he does, but if he wants to dismiss a huffpo link because it's huffpo, he can perform some simple keyword searches on pubmed.

And you've given him plenty of keywords to consider.

I am not opposed to the idea that a person could be born in the wrong body. I simply haven't seen any credible evidence to support it.

If your understanding is based on your thoroughly discredited link, I can understand that. Take EAllusion's recommendation and do a pubmed search.

And either way, whether they were literally born that way in terms of biology, or whether it's in their head, something is wrong.

You haven't indicated that this feeling that "something is wrong" is based on actual knowledge, any research you have done, or even scientific reasoning. if you'd like to argue the point, great, please present your argument, but unsupported declarations like this are meaningless at best, and have the potential to be quite hurtful at worst.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

First off, this is not a woman/female.

This is a cross dressing man/male who wants to

1. Take female hormones to add to his man boobs and raise his voice
2. Cut off his male parts and create a hole in his crouch and call it a vagina.

He is, and never will be, a she.

I disagree, artificial genital organs are already a reality. We don't know the limits of Science.
I wouldn't bet on "never will be".

This fake vagina is not a birth canal and does not lead up to a cervix and uterus.

A fake vagina is nothing more than an open healed wound that a male can insert his penis into. A fleshlight, his hand, all the same.

Men who have a hole created in their crotch, or fake vagina, are just like any other hole from piercings that the body will attempt to close. Men with fake vaginas must insert a dildo of sorts on a very regular basis and leave it in there for several hours each day to keep the body from closing this wound.

Women attempting to become men is even worse. Sure remove the breasts and even the uterus and close up the vagina. But attempting to stretch out the clitoris and wrap it in tissue... NOT A PENIS.

[_Jersey Girl]

This fake vagina is not a birth canal and does not lead up to a cervix and uterus.

A fake vagina is nothing more than an open healed wound that a male can insert his penis into. A fleshlight, his hand, all the same.

Men who have a hole created in their crotch, or fake vagina, are just like any other hole from piercings that the body will attempt to close. Men with fake vaginas must insert a dildo of sorts on a very regular basis and leave it in there for several hours each day to keep the body from closing this wound.

Women attempting to become men is even worse. Sure remove the breasts and even the uterus and close up the vagina. But attempting to stretch out the clitoris and wrap it in tissue... NOT A PENIS.

Since you're now the font of all information regarding gender reassignment, would you like to tell the class again how the world is divided into male, female and hermaphrodite, and where you get those particular ideas from?

[_Polygamy-Porter]

He's a man, not a woman. He seems like a very caring and sensitive guy. I'll bet he was a really good Bishop and SP.

I wonder how he feels about polygamy .....

His wife must be a true Saint.

If people actually consider the guy to be a woman, then his wife must be excommunicated also. Because LDS Inc does not allow homosexual marriage.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Now I am asking you "Would you tell someone with a prosthetic leg "Your leg is fake"? Do you go around saying "prosthetic legs are fake"?"

Prosthetics are just that. PROSTHETICS. Made of plastic, metal, carbon fiber, etc. NOT human flesh.

A transplanted arm or hand is just that, a transplanted hand or limb.

I doubt people with prosthetic limbs demand that people call them arms, hand, legs, and feet.

Are breast implants actual breasts?? NO silly.