Transgender people in the Church

[_Chap]

James Muir:

I believe that homosexuality is promoted by devils

Thanks for being upfront!

You saved me from having to read the rest of your post ...

[_Blixa]

I based my hunch in part upon Blixa's remarks about the numbers she had known.

Sorry if I was ambiguous ; ). There are significantly less ftm trans than mtf...which is why it is odd that I happen to know more of the former, and that's sort of what I was remarking on in passing.

[_harmony]

I'm a bit confused by the last post, but I'll admit it may just be because I don't "have the Spirit". Are you saying it's possible that people with gender identity disorder were formerly evil spirits who tempted people to be gay, who had their gender stripped and then were given another shot at it, and their previous gay tempter status has them confused? Am I getting this right?

I believe that homosexuality is promoted by devils but the confusion is enhanced by multiple attempts at a full cycle of life from organized intelligence/spirit body birth/earth life/spirit world life/resurrection to hell, better, angel or exaltation. I believe that devils must recycle and except for exalted beings, everyone else from Celestial to Telestial beings can opt out of their present situation to return to the Light of Truth completely stripped of all identity, to await another turn of the wheel when they can be called out to try again. Those who have had multiple gender switches in the long, long eternities of who knows how many lives are going to get very confused.
I believe people choose to obey the commandments of God to come out and accordingly choose at that moment both species and gender. I think species changes are rare but possible and most likely only to a higher intelligence. It is our response to obey and therefore our choice. God only provides gifts to advance in freedom. Since all things exist because of the gifts of God he is worthy of worship and Almighty in justice and judgment at the same time.

In other words we all were devils probably many times over. The only alternative to life somewhere along the line from devil to little g gods is to abide in the undifferenciated media of light and truth.

by the way I cannot look at your Avatar without laughing, thanks

Are you serious? Holy sheep shorts, Batman! This is right out of the Dark Ages.

[_James Muir]

I'm a bit confused by the last post, but I'll admit it may just be because I don't "have the Spirit". Are you saying it's possible that people with gender identity disorder were formerly evil spirits who tempted people to be gay, who had their gender stripped and then were given another shot at it, and their previous gay tempter status has them confused? Am I getting this right?

I believe that homosexuality is promoted by devils but the confusion is enhanced by multiple attempts at a full cycle of life from organized intelligence/spirit body birth/earth life/spirit world life/resurrection to hell, better, angel or exaltation. I believe that devils must recycle and except for exalted beings, everyone else from Celestial to Telestial beings can opt out of their present situation to return to the Light of Truth completely stripped of all identity, to await another turn of the wheel when they can be called out to try again. Those who have had multiple gender switches in the long, long eternities of who knows how many lives are going to get very confused.
I believe people choose to obey the commandments of God to come out and accordingly choose at that moment both species and gender. I think species changes are rare but possible and most likely only to a higher intelligence. It is our response to obey and therefore our choice. God only provides gifts to advance in freedom. Since all things exist because of the gifts of God he is worthy of worship and Almighty in justice and judgment at the same time.

In other words we all were devils probably many times over. The only alternative to life somewhere along the line from devil to little g gods is to abide in the undifferenciated media of light and truth.

by the way I cannot look at your Avatar without laughing, thanks

Are you serious? Holy sheep shorts, Batman! This is right out of the Dark Ages.

The Dark Ages were a staged oppression to bury all the jewels of Christianity under the weight of a manufactured ignorance and superstition, gotten up by the Druids who slipped in from the shadows to take over both the Roman Empire, and the Holy Roman Empire.

Every so often they have to field something they have no control over and reinvent their control. What they cannot control is who God sends into the world:

Martin Luther
Johannes Gutenburg
Ferdinand Magellan
James Watt
Joseph Smith (personal favorite)
Bill Gates
And of course everone who inspired them and who they inspired.

One reason ritualistic abuse exists is to sift through the children to try and find the fearless.

[_Bond...James Bond]

The Dark Ages were a staged oppression to bury all the jewels of Christianity under the weight of a manufactured ignorance and superstition, gotten up by the Druids who slipped in from the shadows to take over both the Roman Empire, and the Holy Roman Empire.

Dude...this is just wrong on SO many levels.

[_Blixa]

The Dark Ages were a staged oppression to bury all the jewels of Christianity under the weight of a manufactured ignorance and superstition, gotten up by the Druids who slipped in from the shadows to take over both the Roman Empire, and the Holy Roman Empire.

Dude...this is just wrong on SO many levels.

Duh, if anyone is a minion of Satan it's Bill Gates...

[_harmony]

A question, brought to mind by ... well, nevermind why.

Let's say a person lives as a man but in reality is a woman. He lives as a man because that's how he thinks of himself. He marries a lady who, when she finds out he's a she, kills herself. He's now a grieving widower. He joins the church. He's ordained to the priesthood. He takes out his endowment. He holds priesthood callings. No one knows he's a she until he dies abruptly of a heart attack, and he's being dressed for burial.

Is this not kinda sorta like the whole Isaac (?) receiving the birthright thing, even though it wasn't really supposed to be his? God didn't take back the birthright, just because the younger brother got it.

[_asbestosman]

Harmony,

I reminded of a temple marriage a decade or so ago (I believe in the Bountiful temple) where a "woman" who was genetically male married a man. Apparently "she" even faked morning sickness. I don't remember details and I certainly do wonder how "she" hid the male reproductive equipment. It was my understanding that "she" had not undergone a mtf transformation.


In the case of Jacob getting a blessing hat Isaac wanted to give Essau, I think part of it was that God really wanted it to go to Jacob. In fact it was Jacob's right. Whether God really wants to give women the priesthood, I suppose it's debatable. Personally I hope so, but it's really not up to me at all.

[_Zoidberg]

I've been a little busy lately, so I guess the thread has just died down and no one has heard of trans people joining the Church or marrying members. Oh well.

There is a proper way to disagree and an imporoper, accusatory way to disagree within the church.

I really don't think the form matters as much as the essence, but if you tell me how I could rephrase my objection in a non-accusatory way, I'll do it.

Humans born with only ovaries are defined as "women" by the church even if "he" identifies "himself" as a man.
Humans born with only testes are treated as "men" by the church even if "she" identifies "herself" as a woman.
There's really nothing ambiguous in those cases.

Yes, you could definitely say that. But where does it leave the rest of the population? If everyone were born with either "only" ovaries or "only" testes, I doubt we would even be having this conversation; if it were the case, I also suspect that trans people would be looked upon even less favorably by society than they are now.

The other cases do not swallow the rule for the above cases which are the most common. The existance of people who do not have moral accountability does not mean that moral culpability should only be decided by the indivudual. Moral accountability is largely a social construct too. Morality is often ambiguous as is moral accountability. Morality is fairly universal. It is quite like gender in that regard. Ambiguous cases and social constructs do not mean that the church's stance on moral accountability is therefore wrong or lacking.

I keep trying to tell you this is different but you just don't seem to be able to agree with me. The "no moral accountability" cases are much clearer because we're talking moral culpability vs. lack thereof, not two different forms of moral culpability which no one seems to be able to define. I actually do think that moral culpability should only be decided by the individual; of course, if a different consensus is reached by a group of individuals among which they live, that's too bad, I suppose. I think we've talked about that before and I've come to the conclusion that it's impossible to live in a way that would guarantee that what you consider good or neutral intentions on your part are not interpreted as harmful by someone else. I think moral relativism is much more rational than moral absolutism, unless you consider the universal moral grammar as defined by Hauser and Chomsky the appropriate measuring stick; but then again, I don't think we should be slaves to our biological make-up, which you undoubtedly agree with in the cases of masturbation and same-sex attraction. For some reason, though, your standard is different when it comes to gender roles and appearance.

So of course I think that the man/woman dichotomy exists because there are biological differences and most of the population are perceived as either one or the other by the rest of the population without a shadow of doubt. But there are really no definitions to rely on; if the Church really thinks in a way ED described, i.e. "people born with a penis (x inches long) are men and the rest are women", then why don't they make it official already? Perhaps because this definition is way too simplistic.

Granted, man and woman are largely social constructs. But yet gender has a very strong basis in biology. We generally don't make a fuss about the ambiguity of gender in other animals. It's usually pretty straightforward. When someone wonders if my dog is male or female, they aren't asking how I identify my dog nor how he identifies himself. They're wondering whether my dog was born with ovaries or testes (or maybe whether it is ambiguous). What if it is ambiguous? Then I probably won't be asked if I'd like to breed my dog with another.

Gender roles are a social construct. What I'm able to do as far as reproduction goes, is largely an issue of biology. If I, today, suddenly identify myself as a woman, what do you think would happen if I walk into a woman's bathroom? Maybe social constructs of gender are a bit deeper than religion. In fact, maybe the gender thing is a bit deeper than social constructs too. I mean, I don't necessarily care how one identify one's self when it comes to me seeking a mate. I care how I identify said person. I'll never be interested in a human as a mate who has testes but identifies "herself" as a woman.

This makes a lot of sense because we are all solipsists, really. If you think you're not, you are just deluding yourself because I am right. See?

I am sure that someone who you would identify as a man in drag couldn't care less for your opinion of them as long as you don't harass them.

But maybe that's just a social construct with me. I might conceede that, but then I would also say that while it is a social contruct, it isn't limited to how a person identifies the self. It also depends on how others identify the person. A social organization such as the church has every right to identify people in similar ways.

It absolutely does, but it should at least admit that their identification practices are comletely arbitrary and unfounded and they reserve the right to deny membership to anyone for any reason, sort of like they do at night clubs. Instead, they make a big deal about welcoming everyone with open arms for some reason.

If it's the same I'll take your word for it. I don't think it really hurts my position so much as disproves my hypothesis. I've pretty much given up on that one either way.

It is the same. Page 537 in DSM-IV. You might be also interested to know that people with the intersex condition who experience gender dysphoria in their assigned gender role can also be diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder Not Otherwise specified, so intersex people and trans people are not always that far off psychologically.

[_asbestosman]

I am sure that someone who you would identify as a man in drag couldn't care less for your opinion of them as long as you don't harass them.

Fine with me, but I think the point here isn't so much how I identify such a person, but rather how the church identifies said person.

But maybe that's just a social construct with me. I might conceede that, but then I would also say that while it is a social contruct, it isn't limited to how a person identifies the self. It also depends on how others identify the person. A social organization such as the church has every right to identify people in similar ways.

It absolutely does, but it should at least admit that their identification practices are comletely arbitrary and unfounded and they reserve the right to deny membership to anyone for any reason, sort of like they do at night clubs. Instead, they make a big deal about welcoming everyone with open arms for some reason.

Completely arbitrary? No. Somewhat arbitrary? Yes. Unfounded? You merely mean it's scientifically unfounded given the evidence of ambiguous cases. That's all fine and dandy, but it has nothing to do with the majority of people. Indeed, I would like to know if the majority of people with GID, also have ambiguous gender. You seem to make the connection so much that it would at least be good to know how related they truly are instead of merely using one as wedge to open the door for the other. You partly answered it when you stated:

You might be also interested to know that people with the intersex condition who experience gender dysphoria in their assigned gender role can also be diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder Not Otherwise specified, so intersex people and trans people are not always that far off psychologically.

That's an interesting tidbit, but I think there are more variables to consider before one should conclude that intersex and trans people are closely related Even if the two are independent of each other, I will still expect some to fall into both categories by chance. Only if they were negatively correlated would I expect nobody to fall into both categories simultaneously.


As an aside, I find it odd that gender is now often treated not only as part of one's physical makeup, but also one's sexual preference. As such I have been wondering whether I might really be a lesbian trapped in a man's body. Maybe I'll add cross-dressing to the lesbian in a man's body just for kicks. ;o)