Transgender people in the Church

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Zoidberg
_Emeritus
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:42 am

Post by _Zoidberg »

Doctor Steuss wrote:When did GRS become the unpardonable sin? If it was performed before they joined the Church, what is it about that one particular "sin" that makes it worse than any others that would still allow for a person to go through the temple?

Maybe I'm not seeing something (which is quite possible), but I don't get it.


I think it has to do with temple ordinances being gender-specific. Since the Church believes, say, an ftm transsexual is still a woman, the only way they could go through the temple is as a man, to which they probably would not agree because they don't consider themselves to be male.

Also, the Brethren probably want to avoid confusion that would inevitably arise. If there was a elder who is a female for all intents and purposes, biological females would want the priesthood, too. If someone born female but living as a man had the priesthood, regular females would say there is no basis for denying them the priesthood. Lose-lose, and we just can't have that.

This is all speculation, but I consider it a rather sound explanation.
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

I'm curious what aspect of receiving this surgery is actually a sin worthy of excommunication? Where, exactly, is the sin in this? It might be silly, and I just don't understand it no matter how hard I try, but where's the sin?
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_Zoidberg
_Emeritus
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:42 am

Post by _Zoidberg »

Sethbag wrote:I'm curious what aspect of receiving this surgery is actually a sin worthy of excommunication? Where, exactly, is the sin in this? It might be silly, and I just don't understand it no matter how hard I try, but where's the sin?


This is actually a very good question. Is mastectomy a sin? Is an XY individual taking hormones and growing boobs sinning? Or does "elective transsexual operation" only refer to altering genitalia? The fact that the CHI is the only place where I've seen the term "elective transsexual operation" doesn't make it any easier. What the heck do they mean by that?

Cross-dressing is not sufficient grounds for formal discipline, as far as I understand it. What about binding and packing and living as a man? I guess you could say a biological female that does that is lying, but that's it? what's so magical about a surgery?
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

For anyone: What would be the church's position in the case of infants born with ambiguous gentalia?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Sethbag wrote:I'm curious what aspect of receiving this surgery is actually a sin worthy of excommunication? Where, exactly, is the sin in this? It might be silly, and I just don't understand it no matter how hard I try, but where's the sin?


Gender is sacred. Changing the way God made you is tampering with the sacred. It's easier to excommunicate someone than have to deal with issues the GA's are uncomfortable with.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Jersey Girl wrote:For anyone: What would be the church's position in the case of infants born with ambiguous gentalia?


Choose.
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Masectomies are not considered sinful. The proceedure is generally to save the life of the woman.

I think it's more than just about operating on someone's genitilia. It is my understanding that the church does not discipline women who get their tubes tied nor men who get a vasectomy. I have heard that it is discouraged though.

I think the thing against gender reassignment is similar to the thing against homosexual relationships. If the church fully allowed the one to marry in the temple, then it would have less grounds to disallow the other. Furthermore I think most people realize that and hope to use the gender reassignment issue to further criticize the church's stance on gays and lesbians.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

harmony wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:For anyone: What would be the church's position in the case of infants born with ambiguous gentalia?


Choose.


Thanks, harm. Wouldn't that be changing the way God made you and tampering with sacred stuff as you stated above? If not, why not?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

Jersey Girl wrote:For anyone: What would be the church's position in the case of infants born with ambiguous gentalia?

Someone, I think my brother, told me of a member he'd either met, or heard about (this story has degenerated in my mind to about the status of "urban legend" by now), who was born with ambiguous genitalia and was raised as a boy by his parents, received the Aaronic priesthood, and then later in his teens decided that he'd rather live as a female and made the transition.

This is part of the problem with LDS theology. LDS theology posits absolutely that there are only two kinds of spirits, male and female, and that each person is either one or the other, period. There's no room in LDS theology for any ambiguity in the matter. But real biology is different. While it's true that the vast majority of us are either male or female, and that the males are overwhelmingly XY and the females are overwhelmingly XX, there are cases where XY individuals have developed as biological females, with boobs, vaginas, clitoris, labia, etc. And there are XX individuals who developed with nuts and a package. I read of an XY person who was somehow resistant to, or allergic to, testosterone who developed physically as a female and only discovered this after she and her husband were tested after having fertility problems.

And there are people who have XXY chromosomes even. That's truly ambiguous. What kind of spirit inhabits an XXY body? Is it a female spirit? Is it a male spirit? How would the LDS church know whether to ordain that person to the Priesthood or not? What would happen if they ordained that person, but in fact the spirit was female? Would it "work"? If baptisms were performed by that female spirit trapped in a genetically ambiguous body, would they be valid? And if so, why not just ordain all women then, if there's no problem with the ordinances being valid?

If an LDS couple were to discover, after 10 years of happy and consummated, but childless marriage, that both the husband and the wife were XY, and that the wife was one of these folks who developed female sex characteristics for hormonal reasons in the womb, would they have to separate? Would their relationship be homosexual, an abomination in God's sight? Would that XY body be inhabited by a female spirit, or a male spirit? Would it be a "man trapped in a woman's body"? What if the couple divorced, and the XY "female" decided to live as a male from now on? Would he have the right, based on his XY chromosomes, to receive the priesthood?

In reality, there is no such thing as a male spirit, or a female spirit. There are only human beings, who usually are differentiated physically by sex on account of hormonal differences during development which are influenced by the X and Y chromosomes. And sometimes, when things don't go strictly by the plan, as it were, you have a human being who is neither strictly male, nor strictly female. It's real.

This kind of thing is, in my opinion, another subtle reminder of the manmade nature of the LDS theology and religion. It was formulated when only clear-cut man/woman roles and physical bodies were contemplated. It was formulated based on what Joseph Smith and his successors knew. Now we know a lot more, and we realize that the theology that seems so comprehensive and clear as a bell to the true believers is totally inadequate to include, and account for, the rare cases that in fact occur in nature.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_Zoidberg
_Emeritus
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:42 am

Post by _Zoidberg »

Jersey Girl wrote:For anyone: What would be the church's position in the case of infants born with ambiguous gentalia?


There is none. None whatsoever. Zilch. There isn't even a statement like "The Church has not taken a position on intersex people", even though they indicate on LDS.org that they haven't taken a position on stem cell research.

Because it's easier to ignore the problem that would undermine the whole LDS theology. The only statement I've been able to find is SWK calling them "relatively few accidents of nature", but that's it.

On MAD, I hypothesized that people with the intersex condition would be allowed to go to the temple. One of the posters confirmed with anecdotal evidence.

A-man, that's the inconsistency here. For all we know, a boy born without a penis a few decades ago, when it was common practice to perform "corrective" surgeries at birth would have been given a vagina and raised as a girl and there is no basis whatsoever for assuming this person would be denied a temple recommend or not allowed to get married as a woman to a prietshood holder. Even though this person would be a biological male.

So with the biological reality in mind the whole discrimination against LGBT people, the male priesthood and women primarily intended to be bearers of children collapses like a house of cards. I am convinced that this is the primary reason why the intersex issue is being so carefully ignored by the Church.

Sethbag, did your brother specify what happened to this intersex person? Is she still a member? Was she allowed to receive a temple recommend? Was the priesthood somehow revoked from her or does she still hold it?
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney
Post Reply