Transgender people in the Church

[_asbestosman]

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.

You also mentioned the President Kimball said that intersexed cases are rare. I think this is significant and that such cases no more swallow the LDS rule than say the existance of the mentally unstable means that nobody should be accountable for their actions. I think God will sort it out in the end so long as we do our best. Reassignment surgery could be ssen as more on the meddling with sacred reproductive powers for personal pleasure end of the scale than the obediance and faith end.

I'm perfectly fine leaving intersexed or reassigned people alone. I don't see why those who undergo reassignment should expect full temple blessings any more than someone who drinks coffee. Except there is one caveat I have. If some has changed genders, how could one repent and get temple blessings? A coffee drinker can stop drinking coffee. Does the reassigned person need to undergo the knife again? I think it's an interesting question but either way I don't see how it means the church is wrong about gender. I'm sure God will deal with exceptions even if He doesn't list them all for us.

[Anonymous]

I'm perfectly fine leaving intersexed or reassigned people alone. I don't see why those who undergo reassignment should expect full temple blessings any more than someone who drinks coffee.

This is where I'm totally confused. Where is the sin? Drinking coffee is explicitly forbidden by the Word of Wisdom, in Section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Where does it say thou shalt not remove thy penis, nor take hormones to grow boobies? This surgery may well seem bizarre to you and me, but where is the sin in it?

I think it's an interesting question but either way I don't see how it means the church is wrong about gender. I'm sure God will deal with exceptions even if He doesn't list them all for us.

I think it's pretty clear that the church's black/white stance on gender, that there are two different kinds of people spiritually, male and female, and each of us gets one of those spirits and thus is unquestionably male or female, was fashioned during an era, and by people, who had no idea that the reality of the gender thing, biologically, wasn't nearly so cut and dried. The notion that someone with a "male spirit" can get the Priesthood, and someone with a "female spirit" can't, is undermined by the existence of people who are scientifically not identifiable as either either one sex or the other. Does God Almighty cause a stupor of thought to fall on someone attempting to ordain a 12 year old presumed male, who is in fact actually a person housing a female spirit, but because of one of SWK's "freaks of nature" their body looked male?

According to LDS, all things were created spiritually before they were created physically. So what is the spirit like of a person with XXY chromosomes? What is the spirit like of an XY person who nevertheless has a vagina, ovaries, a clitoris, labia, and a C cup, who is married to another XY person who has a penis?

The reality is that the LDS conception of spirits doesn't align itself perfectly with reality, and there is no good justification for it except the timeworn "God will sort it out" excuse. How many things has God got to sort out now?

[_Zoidberg]

You also mentioned the President Kimball said that intersexed cases are rare. I think this is significant and that such cases no more swallow the LDS rule than say the existance of the mentally unstable means that nobody should be accountable for their actions. I think God will sort it out in the end so long as we do our best. Reassignment surgery could be ssen as more on the meddling with sacred reproductive powers for personal pleasure end of the scale than the obediance and faith end.

I'm perfectly fine leaving intersexed or reassigned people alone. I don't see why those who undergo reassignment should expect full temple blessings any more than someone who drinks coffee. Except there is one caveat I have. If some has changed genders, how could one repent and get temple blessings? A coffee drinker can stop drinking coffee. Does the reassigned person need to undergo the knife again? I think it's an interesting question but either way I don't see how it means the church is wrong about gender. I'm sure God will deal with exceptions even if He doesn't list them all for us.

The issue is more about the Brethren's ability to discern an individual's gender, or eternal spirit, as Sethbag put it. If they can't do it 100% of the time, how do they know that people with GID aren't a spirit/body mismatch? There is no doctrinal basis for assuming it's not possible. I don't think your comparison of intersex people with mentally unstable people is valid because it is still possible to imagine what mentally ustable people's roles would be if they make it to the CK level 3.

As for your question about reverse surgery, I've wondered that, too. What if they just revert to living in their first gender? I don't imagine many people would want to do either, but who knows. It doesn't sound like an exception would be made for them, but perhaps they could involve the FP and make it work somehow. Otherwise, the situation would be ridiculous; a naturally formed penis becomes a necessary prerequisite for receiving the priesthood.

I'm also wondering, along with Sethbag, why all the fuss about the actual surgery. No one is going to excommunicate you for cross-dressing, but I would like to know what the essential difference is. Plastic surgery isn't forbidden; how many Mormon girls have got boob jobs while proudly sporting only one pair of earrings?

[_AmazingDisgrace]

My brother told me that on his mission, during a Q&A session with a GA, somebody asked what the church's position was on people with ambiguous genitalia. The answer was, "If there's a penis, it's a boy." The follow-up question that nobody asked was where, exactly, on the continuum from clitoris to penis, the church made this arbitrary distinction.

Thinking about it now, it reminds me of the belief that even "one drop of Negro blood" disqualified a man from having the priesthood. If your religion requires a world of discrete categories, but the world you live in is actually continuous, you've got to impose your boundaries somewhere.

[_asbestosman]

The issue is more about the Brethren's ability to discern an individual's gender, or eternal spirit, as Sethbag put it. If they can't do it 100% of the time, how do they know that people with GID aren't a spirit/body mismatch?

Irrelavent. God will sort out the rare cases, but it is our job to do our best. The rare cases will not swallow the rule.

There is no doctrinal basis for assuming it's not possible. I don't think your comparison of intersex people with mentally unstable people is valid because it is still possible to imagine what mentally ustable people's roles would be if they make it to the CK level 3.

Same with intersexed people. The role they play will simply be according to what gender their spirits have. It does not matter that their physical bodies were ambiguous or incorrect on this point.

I'm also wondering, along with Sethbag, why all the fuss about the actual surgery. No one is going to excommunicate you for cross-dressing, but I would like to know what the essential difference is. Plastic surgery isn't forbidden; how many Mormon girls have got boob jobs while proudly sporting only one pair of earrings?

A boob job does not reverse the roles of the sacred procreative powers. Even having one's penis removed isn't necessarily a sin if it is done because, say, it develops cancer or something. It is the intent that is sinful.

[_Sethbag]

Again, where's the sin, Abman? How is intending to live one's life as a particular gender, regardless of how one's genitalia developed in the womb, sinful?

You're saying that having one's penis removed is not necessarily an actus reus, unless accompanied by a mens rea. What exactly is the guilty intent here? What, specifically, is the sin that makes one unworthy of entering the temple, or even of remaining a member of the church? Is it wanting to be a woman? Or wanting to be a man?

Do you really believe that Allmighty God up in Heaven, the Creator of the entire universe filled with billions and billions and billions of stars and potential worlds, really has this big beef with the fact that some confused young man on Earth thinks he really ought to be a woman?

[_Zoidberg]

My brother told me that on his mission, during a Q&A session with a GA, somebody asked what the church's position was on people with ambiguous genitalia. The answer was, "If there's a penis, it's a boy." The follow-up question that nobody asked was where, exactly, on the continuum from clitoris to penis, the church made this arbitrary distinction.

Wow. Just wow. This only confirms my suspicion that the GAs are in desperate need of an anatomy class. I wonder, though, if it's really the Church's position or if it was the GA's personal opinion. But as I said in my previous post, sounds like they've picked an appropriate alternative name for the priesthood on RfM.

They really need to declare the appropriate length so that all current priesthood holders can measure theirs and determine once and for all whether or not they are worthy of holding the priesthood.

Thinking about it now, it reminds me of the belief that even "one drop of Negro blood" disqualified a man from having the priesthood. If your religion requires a world of discrete categories, but the world you live in is actually continuous, you've got to impose your boundaries somewhere.

Looks like we all have "Negro blood" because the first people had dark skin, so the Priesthood should have just been taken from Earth between Brigham's arbitrary decision and 1978.

A-man, stop repeating your mantra and tell me what basis there is for declaring that there can't be a complete spirit/body mismatch or for treating transsexuals differently than intersex cases. The APA is moving away from classifying transsexualism as a mental disorder, as well. Of course, when has the Church ever cared about what the consensus is between mental health professionals?

Why are intersex people allowed to act according to their spirit, but trans people are not? As for the sacred procreative powers, what if they are already sterile when they go get SRS? I don't think it makes a difference for the Church and they would still probably get exed.

[_asbestosman]

Do you really believe that Allmighty God up in Heaven, the Creator of the entire universe filled with billions and billions and billions of stars and potential worlds, really has this big beef with the fact that some confused young man on Earth thinks he really ought to be a woman?

I think he has a beef with those who mock the sacred gift of procreation by actually altering their gender or having sex outside of marriage.

[_Chap]

Do you really believe that Allmighty God up in Heaven, the Creator of the entire universe filled with billions and billions and billions of stars and potential worlds, really has this big beef with the fact that some confused young man on Earth thinks he really ought to be a woman?

I think he has a beef with those who mock the sacred gift of procreation by actually altering their gender or having sex outside of marriage.

But so long as you are married, it is OK with him if you have sex just for fun, using contraception, and he will not feel anything is being mocked?
Or (again so long as you are married) you can have sex for fun as often as you like if one of you is permanently infertile, without "mocking the sacred gift of procreation"? Or if the woman has passed the menopause (and you are married to her) you can have sex for fun as often as you like, and he will not mind at all if procreation is not part of the deal at all?

On the other hand, if you have sex with someone you are not married to, but with whom you have had four children, that IS "mocking the sacred gift"?

Gee, without revelation how would we ever have worked out that God could be so quirky in his views?

[_asbestosman]

But so long as you are married, it is OK with him if you have sex just for fun, using contraception, and he will not feel anything is being mocked?
Or (again so long as you are married) you can have sex for fun as often as you like if one of you is permanently infertile, without "mocking the sacred gift of procreation"? Or if the woman has passed the menopause (and you are married to her) you can have sex for fun as often as you like, and he will not mind at all if procreation is not part of the deal at all?

Sex isn't exclusively about procreation, so I don't see how those cases mock the sacred gift--at least so long as one is not purposely putting off children forever for selfish reasons. Sex withing marriage, even an infertile one, will help strenghten the bonds of matrimony which will help strengthen eternal bonds in an eternal marriage. Eternal marriage does not work for people of the same (spirit) gender.

On the other hand, if you have sex with someone you are not married to, but with whom you have had four children, that IS "mocking the sacred gift"?

It is a mockery of the sacredness of marriage which is the only thing that shows proper respect for the sacred gift of procreation.


Come one people, did you really not think of these things when you were TBMs?