Transgender people in the Church

[_James Muir]

I wasn't aware squirrels, bowling balls and sashimi had spirits. Is that doctrinal?

Only if you've played the video game called Chrono Trigger.

Seriously, God can prepare a man to translate an acient document by having him hunt for buried treasure with a seerstone in the bottom of a hat. That's totally reasonable. Also totally reasonable for God to have his reasons for a man to sleep with 30+ women without his wife's consent. Said ancient record making it's way from Guatamala to upstate New York is reasonable. God putting a man's spirit in a female body is totally unreasonable.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

God making mistakes is unreasonable.

Glad to be of service.

Simplistic thoughts cannot comprehend God. God is eternal and so your thoughts must include an eternal model to begin to understand. Everything must roll from one eternity to the next.

Devils are forced into the second death which strips them of all identity, Including gender. They return to the light and await the command to come out and recieve an independent sphere of existence (D&C 93:23-30) by the gift of knowledge of that sphere/male/female according to thier choice at that moment to obey one way or another. This is where the confusion begins.

Maybe it ought to be said regardless. Just this once. Also, any one devil might have made of career out of tempting people to act homosexual. After one eternity of fixing so much attention upon it then getting flushed down to zero and ultimately returning his instict to choose a gender might be a little fuzzy. OOPS!

We are always free to follow our own desires. God can wait and wait and wait until we finally agree with him. All those things will give you experience and be for your good.
As for the biological mixes. Let's praise God that something that possible happens only negligably. Does that not glorify God in that billions upon billions come out okay?

[_MishMagnet]

I agree that God making mistakes is unreasonable and such led me away from the church. What you see as reasonable I see as a mistake and vice-versa. In my opinion polygamy causes great, great harm. Man turning into a woman by surgery not so much. I accept that we won't agree on this point.

[_Sethbag]

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?

[_asbestosman]

Man turning into a woman by surgery not so much. I accept that we won't agree on this point.

If it weren't for the plan of salvation and Eternal Marriage, I would actually agree.

[_Zoidberg]

If people with AIS can somehow receive revelation from God or whatever you want to call it what gender to identify with, why is similar experience in people with GID discounted?

Probably for similar reasons that those who think they are Elvis reincarnated are discounted.

How can I get it in your head that we already know that Elvis is dead and there is no evidence that people can get reincarnated? But there is no single common biological trait that all people of one gender share, so someone else telling them what gender they ought to identify with is absurd.

I'm not talking about individual doctors but of the medical tests in a profession. The criteria for some diseases can be extremely tricky and elusive, and even arbitrary. You are unwilling to see that for reasons I can suspect.

Medical tests can improve overtime, of course; they have nothing to do with the existence of the diseases. Chromosomal testing was unavailable for a long time, so I'm sure plenty of people with Turner went their whole life without finding out that they were actually supposed to be men. Unless you can perform a medical test that determines what spirit someone has, you can't say that people with GID aren't actually spirits of the opposite gender than their bodies.

Let us be fair, The definition of human is even somewhat elusive and arbitrary. We have put human DNA in pigs and even grown human neurons in mice (chimeras). None of that means we need to give animals the same rights as humans.

This is getting ridiculous. Human neurons do not equal humans. But I'm all for the same rights for other species with or without human DNA. I doubt it'll ever happen, though. I can't even become a vegeterian - I like chili too much.

I also wonder whether Gender Identity Disorder isn't more based on how people treat others based on gender. I suspect if there are more f2m transformations that that may be why. I am somewhat curious as to what factors have been correlated with GID.

You are embarrassing yourself again.

The criteria from DSM-IV for diagnosing someone with GID are the following:

1.There must be evidence of a strong and persistent cross-gender identification.
2.This cross-gender identification must not merely be a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex.
3.There must also be evidence of persistent discomfort about one's assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex.
4.The individual must not have a concurrent physical intersex condition (e.g., androgen insensitivity syndrome or congenital adrenal hyperplasia).
5.There must be evidence of clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. link

It is currently believed that the ratio of mtf to ftm is 1:1, even though before it was thought that there were more mtf's (of course, the ratio of people seeking surgery, which is how the study was done, may have changed over the years and it probably has - perhaps they've gotten better at phalloplasty?).

Blixa, I just suspect that the GAs were referring to the biological sex when they said "gender". As in, if you have a uterus and functional ovaries, your fate is clear, the gender roles are determined by biological sex, etc.

I agree that the notion of gender is limiting and repressive, but I don't have anything against labels as long as they are voluntarily worn.

by the way, do any of yout trans friends happen to be LDS converts or married to LDS or former LDS? Probably not, huh?

[_asbestosman]

But there is no single common biological trait that all people of one gender share, so someone else telling them what gender they ought to identify with is absurd.

No more absurd than telling them what God does or does not want them to eat. So far as public policy goes I agree though.

Medical tests can improve overtime, of course; they have nothing to do with the existence of the diseases. Chromosomal testing was unavailable for a long time, so I'm sure plenty of people with Turner went their whole life without finding out that they were actually supposed to be men. Unless you can perform a medical test that determines what spirit someone has, you can't say that people with GID aren't actually spirits of the opposite gender than their bodies.

It will be clear in the resurrection and we are asked to be obediant. It's pretty simple really. Again, for public policy you are right. For religion you don't have a leg to stand on.

This is getting ridiculous. Human neurons do not equal humans.

Bingo. Gender ain't the only thing that's ambiguous.

I also wonder whether Gender Identity Disorder isn't more based on how people treat others based on gender. I suspect if there are more f2m transformations that that may be why. I am somewhat curious as to what factors have been correlated with GID.

You are embarrassing yourself again.

What's embarassing about asking a question? My hunch was wrong, and my hunch really had nothing to do with the church's policy nor my own take on said policy (or lack thereof). I based my hunch in part upon Blixa's remarks about the numbers she had known. By the way, I don't put much stock in Wikipedia for controversial issues such as gender, religion, politics.

[_Zoidberg]

It will be clear in the resurrection and we are asked to be obediant. It's pretty simple really. Again, for public policy you are right. For religion you don't have a leg to stand on.

So are you saying that even though the Church's policy doesn't really make any sense, we should obey it? How about women not being allowed to pray in the sacrament meeting? Should everyone just have obeyed that arbitrary policy and women still shouldn't be allowed to do that? You are actually suggesting that it's better to suspend your own thinking, moral compass and common sense than disagree even with the most ridiculous policies?

Bingo. Gender ain't the only thing that's ambiguous.

No, I don't think there is anything ambiguous about rats with human neurons, sorry. They are rats with human neurons.

You could also say that I am a human with a uterus, ovaries, vagina, clitoris, labia and boobs. And probably two X chromosomes. And also a woman because I identify myself as such. Or saying that someone is a human with ovotestes is not ambiguous. If they see themselves as a woman, they are also a woman. Nothing ambiguous here, really.

Because "man" and "woman" are largely social constructs. If I say I'm a LOTR fan, are you going to make me take a test on the minute details of the book before you believe me?

It could also be argued that genetics, hormones in the womb or something else determined my overall make-up in a way that enables me to like LOTR.

What's embarassing about asking a question? My hunch was wrong, and my hunch really had nothing to do with the church's policy nor my own take on said policy (or lack thereof). I based my hunch in part upon Blixa's remarks about the numbers she had known. By the way, I don't put much stock in Wikipedia for controversial issues such as gender, religion, politics.

But do you put stock in the DSM-IV that they were quoting from? If you are so suspicious, I can look it up in the actual manual. You want me to?

[_asbestosman]

So are you saying that even though the Church's policy doesn't really make any sense, we should obey it? How about women not being allowed to pray in the sacrament meeting? Should everyone just have obeyed that arbitrary policy and women still shouldn't be allowed to do that? You are actually suggesting that it's better to suspend your own thinking, moral compass and common sense than disagree even with the most ridiculous policies?

There is a proper way to disagree and an imporoper, accusatory way to disagree within the church. No suspension of thinking necessary.

No, I don't think there is anything ambiguous about rats with human neurons, sorry. They are rats with human neurons.

You could also say that I am a human with a uterus, ovaries, vagina, clitoris, labia and boobs. And probably two X chromosomes. And also a woman because I identify myself as such. Or saying that someone is a human with ovotestes is not ambiguous.

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.

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.

Because "man" and "woman" are largely social constructs. If I say I'm a LOTR fan, are you going to make me take a test on the minute details of the book before you believe me?

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.

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.

But do you put stock in the DSM-IV that they were quoting from? If you are so suspicious, I can look it up in the actual manual. You want me to?

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.

[_harmony]

Once again:

Proclamation to the World = Doctrine?

Anyone?

Well, it's as close as this group of leaders is ever going to get. Unfortunately.

[_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