Queer Mormon poet with radical political views. I have been married 27 years, and we have 6 children. Sunday school president. Served in the Utah Provo Mission.
View all posts by Kim Siever
78 thoughts on “Gender”
I believe the proclamation on the family has words to that effect.
One of the tricks of nature in a fallen world is that some bodies are ambiguous as their maleness or femaleness.
It’s a BKPism I can’t buy into. I’m not even sure we were sexed in the preexistance, since we weren’t reproductive beings then. Perhaps we had a proto-sexuality? Itbugaf brings up a good point about those born intersexed.
I’m not raising this to question the teachings of President Packer or the teachings of the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (in the Proclamation on the Family). I just raise the point (which, by the way, President Packer raises, too) to point out that not every spirit–which did indeed have a male or female identity before coming to earth–gets to inhabit a body that is clearly male or female.
So which side of the temple are intersexed people supposed to sit on? I know that might sound snarky, but it’s a question I seriously have pondered.
Furthermore, what if an ambiguously gendered person happens to marry someone of the same gender as their supposedly gender defined spirit? Is it a transgression? Can these people remain married in the next life? What is the deal?
Jeff, many years ago I had a “lesbian” neighbor marry her lover, which “she” could do back then because she was genetically male. I have no answer on the spiritual implications.
Itbugaf, BKP lost me when he said no one is born gay or transgendered. To deny chaos in some aspects of our existence and except it in all other aspects is ridiculous. While I don’t know if some are born that way or not, I do know BKP claiming special knowledge on this question is cruel.
Eric,
The Proclamation simply says gender is a essential characteristic. It doesn’t go so far as to say that the gender of spirit is equivalent to the gender of body.
Steve EM: If you deny that President Packer can claim special knowledge, then I have to assume you reject him outright as a prophet, seer or revelator. Prophets, seers and revelators have special knowledge. Do you disagree?
ltbugaf
do you believe that every word that proceeds out of a prophet’s mouth is divine revelation? are they not entitled to personal opinion?
so when bruce r. mc conkie said that blacks were black and didn’t recieve the priesthood for a period of time because they were less valiant in the pre-existence, that this was from God?
and if so, how do you explain it when the first presidency told him to remove that from mormon doctrine?
also, (we can go on and on) when brigham young told women to stay away from doctors when having their babies, do you agree with that? ( i do at least for me but that’s a whole other topic).
my feelinig is that when we are told it is from God, it is. but they are still entitled to have personal opinions on issues. for another example joseph fielding smith was a vegetarian, does that mean everyone should be?
I don’t think President Packer was offering his own personal speculations about the male or female identity of spirits. Do you?
i don’t know.
however, it seems to me that you believe every solitary word that proceeds out of the mouth of a prophet is straight from God and that upon receiving the call they become deity or at least close to it. i believe the prophet. I know he speaks for Heavenly Father. But I recognise that he doesn’t always, at every moment of the day, speak for the Lord. sometimes he speaks for himself. when he is speaking for the Lord it is pretty clear.
also it seems to me that you feel we should blindly follow the counsel of the prophet without studying it out for ourselves. i hope you don’t believe this. having faith is one thing (and very important and necessary) but being blind followers without using our brains is another.
Itbugaf, It’s probably best I not to comment further on BKP, as my views have been posted elsewhere and would be off-topic. But I will pose a general question: are you saying a modern apostle can’t become one of the false prophets Jesus warned us about?
Oh snap!
Did Steve just go off on Packer?
=)
Steve, I don’t believe President Packer is a false Prophet. I’m sorry you’ve reached the opposite conclusion. I don’t suppose there’s any more to say.
Mary said, “…you believe every solitary word that proceeds out of the mouth of a prophet is straight from God…”
It’s interesting how often people say this, even though I’ve never said any such thing. What I HAVE said and what I DO say is that when the Prophet tells us to do something we should do it. This idea provokes a remarkably indignant response on this ‘blog.
What about when the prophet says something that doesn’t require action; like a principle or idea?
In that case I assume the Prophet is correct until proven otherwise; your position seems to be the opposite.
Itbugaf, I already said I don’t wish to comment further on BKP. I asked a general question and am interested in your thoughts.
Steve EM:
Yes, there’s getting to be quite a pattern on these threads of people saying, “No, I won’t tell you what I believe. Just tell me what YOU believe.”
If you’re interested in my thoughts, read them. I already gave them.
Itbugaf, ok, since you seem intent on me categorically stating my specific views on BKP. I confirm your conclusion above is correct. My views have been posted elsewhere and I didn’t see any need to do so here. I hope we can agree to disagree about BKP.
Now, putting BKP aside, I’m still interested in your thoughts on my general question.
I don’t assume the prophet is incorrect.
You mean, do I believe it is impossible for a modern apostle to become a false prophet? To believe that I would have to believe that a man loses his agency when he is ordained to the apostleship. Obviously, he doesn’t. I would likewise have to ignore the history of apostasy among some of the early apostles of this dispensation, of which I am perfectly aware.
ltbugaf
ok, well like i said it SEEMS this way. but what if the prophet expresses a personal opinion but isn’t actually TELLING us to do something. i just get the impression that you think the prophet is always telling us what to do. you seem to have the idea that a number of us are constantly ignoring the prophet, when that isn’t the case.
as i said earlier, sometimes they can state their own opinion, even when giving advice. like when brigham young said that women should avoid doctors in birth. do you think he was speaking divinely?
I doubt that any woman suffered for avoiding doctor care in childbirth during the time that President Young’s advice was given. The field of obstetrics was poorly developed and well-meaning physicians were often doing more harm than good. I imagine many women benefited from following President Young’s advice at the time.
Was he speaking divinely? I don’t know. I don’t know what the context was. President Young wore a lot of hats–Territorial Governor, Indian affairs agent, Church President, carpenter, and on and on. I think in his time, in particular, the roles tended to mesh and overlap a lot. What role was he in when he spoke those words? I don’t know.
But am I convinced that those who followed his counsel were blessed for it? Yes.
well than i am certainly being blessed.
actually if we want to get technical, obstetrics hasn’t improved the outcome of births, hygeine has.
but that really is another topic.
Hygiene has improved the practice of obstetrics.
It’s funny…this is really just the same discussion we had in November under the Relief Society Funding post.
That’s the one where Kim posted quotes from Brigham Young about how we have to seek confirmation from the Lord rather than just follow leaders blindly. (But if Brigham Young was just expressing his opinion, why should we care what he said?)
Kim:
I think you are over simplifying the statement in the proclamation. Here is the full sentence:
Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
This says that our gender was premortal and is eternal. It certainly seems to at least suggest that this gender is continuous through all phases of our existence. I think it is a real stretch to interpret this in any other way.
yes it has, but obstetric practice (i.e. interventions) have not improved the outcome of childbirth.
i care what all the prophets say. if i didn’t i would be a member of the church.
Mary, I respectfully disagree in that I think the advancement of obstetric science has allowed many “problem” pregnancies to produce healthy babies that otherwise would have died either in utero or while being born.
But as you’ve already said, we’re pretty far off the topic.
you can disagree, but research has shown that it hasn’t improved the outcome.
however when there IS a need for intervention, the safer techniques are there, but interfering before the fact doesn’t improve it. as far as improving it via obstetrics, no it hasn’t. hygeine, social support and nutrition actually improve the outcome of pregnancy and childbirth. more knowledge of proper nutrition during pregnancy has created safer pregnancies and birth, but this is not due to obstetrics, it’s due to better health education.
Eric,
I don’t see how I am over-simplifying it. I said that the Proclamation states gender is an essential characteristic, which your previous comments also says.
While it does say this characteristic is essential to our identity and purpose, that doesn’t mean that the gender of our spirits and the gender of our bodies are the same. Certainly we can assume that it suggests it’s continuous, but it doesn’t say that; that’s simply an interpretation of what it does say.
When I was a kid I saw an episode of the Merv Griffin talk show when he interviewed the first person known to have sexual reassignment surgery, Christine Jorgensen. Ever since then I’ve paid attention in biology and science classes.
There are lots of terms involved that people use incorrectly: transgendered, intersexed, and hermaphrodite all describe different situations.
DNA analysis that finds out the X and Y chromosomes has helped people determine whether they are genetically male (XY), genetically female (XX), or geneticaally hermaphrodite (XXY).
Birth defects involving reproductive organs then add another dimension.
When understanding the public pronouncements of apostles and prophets, it helps to know they are discussing “the rule” and not “the exception”. See here.
“The rule” spoken by BKP would involve someone with normal DNA: XX or XY; such as a person born with normal male reproductive organs corresponding to their XY DNA pair, or someone born with normal female reproductive organs corresponding to their XX DNA pair.
“Transgender” usually refers to someone who has the normal reproductive organs corresponding to their DNA, but “feels” they are someone of the opposite sex.
“Intersexed” would be someone who has either normal XX or normal XY chromosomes, but whose reproductive organs are ambiguous, or who appears to have the external organs of both sexes. Such a person who appears to have the external organs of both sexes is not a true hermaphrodite, but is often incorrectly labeled as a hermaphrodite. (I’ll discuss a ‘true hermaphrodite’ in a later paragraph.) As long as their XX or XY chromosome pair is identifiable, they do not suffer a genetic defect, but are more correctly described as suffering a birth defect or congenital defect.
Babies born in this condition, once having their XX/XY pair determined, can have surgery so their external organs more closely match their genetic (XX/XY) sex. Prior to DNA analysis, doctors made a “best guess”, but often guessed incorrectly. Even after DNA analysis became available, it took a while to understand the genetic influence on sex/gender, and parents/doctors sometimes chose corrective surgery that went against the XX/XY chromosome pair, choosing the sex which most closely matched what the surgeon had to work with. Such “shortest path” surguries which went against genetic (XX/XY) sex, also resulted in tragedies.
Apparent versus true hermaphrodites.
An apparent hermaphrodite may appear to have external sex organs of both sexes, but does not have both testes and ovaries. An apparent hermaphrodite has either XX or XY chromosomes, and parents of such babies are generally counseled to have corrective surgery which brings things in line with their sex as determined by the XX/XY pair of chromosomes.
Regardless of whether the sex organs are ambiguous, or it appears that both male and female external organs are present, the presence of XX or XY chromosomes pretty much determines the sex of the individual, as every cell in their body is either male (xy) or female (xx).
Another factor is that regardless of external appearance, babies with XX (female) chromosomes aren’t born with testes, and babies with XY (male) chromosomes aren’t born with ovaries. (If so, they would be even more rare than true hermaphrodites.)
With an identifiable XX or XY chromosome pair, doctors and scientists can tell the parents, regardless of the condition of the baby’s reproductive organs: “This baby is genetically male” or “This baby is genetically female.”
The XX or XY pair appears in every cell of the human body except gametes (sperm cell or egg cell) which only have 1/2 of the chromosomes.
A true hermaphrodite is defined by having XXY chromosomes, a triplet instead of a pair. A true hermaphrodite can, but not always, have both testes and ovaries.
A true genetic hermaphrodite, an “XXY”, who are even rarer than those born with ambiguous external organs, is the only situation where doctors and geneticists can truely say “we have no basis to make a call of male or female.”
True genetic hermaphrodites (XXY’s) do not always have complete sets of both male and female reproductive organs. One set may be more fully formed than the other, or there may be ambiguity as in the case of aparrent hermaphrodites.
My understanding is that in cases of clear XX or XY chromosomes, but with ambiguous organs, doctors recommend corrective surgery in infancy or very early childhood.
I don’t know what the latest recommendations are in cases of true XXY hermaphrodites.
—-
My belief: I believe if someone has identifiable XX or XY chromosomes, regardless of any birth defects, then their spirit corresponds to their genetic sex. The only true question would be for those born with XXY.
Thank you, Bookslinger.
When understanding the public pronouncements of apostles and prophets, it helps to know they are discussing “the rule†and not “the exceptionâ€.
Here is a similar message by Dallin H. Oaks:
As a General Authority, it is my responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord. Dallin H. Oaks, CES Fireside for Young Adults, May 1, 2005, Oakland, California.
As a matter of fact, I was thinking specifically of XXY folks when I posted above.
I appreciate what’s been posted about rules vs. exceptions. It’s a daunting spiritual responsibility to be responsible for one’s own exception. You have to do so without just making excuses for yourself: “I know the Prophet said to do this but that’s not the way I like to do it, so I’m an exception…”
Kim:
The important part of the sentence that you appear to be intentionally leaving out is the words premortal and eternal. I think if you objectively take the entire sentence as it is written it clearly answers the question.
Eric, please see the thread entitled “Who Am I?”
Kim won’t budge.
I’m beginning to realize that.
think not?
Let me give you an example. Kim can and will change his mind if there is enough evidence in order to do so.
For example, when we were first married there was NO way he was going to consider homebirth for our children. As well, there was no way he was going to consider homeschooling for our children.
However all of our children have not only been born at home, we also homeschool and he is an adamant support for both these ideas now. That’s just two examples, I could give you myriads more.
Kim is not immoveable, he just requires more information then “just because”.
I am not leaving it out, Eric. My statement has been all inclusive.
Considering that outside this tiny speck of mortal life on the scale of our existence, our identity is defined by our spirits, I’m not sure we can go so far as saying the identity of our spirits and that of our bodies is the same (gender characteristics or otherwise).
“Kim can and will change his mind if there is enough evidence in order to do so.”
Actually, I haven’t made up my mind on this issue. I have not specified my opinion on the matter.
I generally agree with Bookslinger (who deserves thanks for clarifying the terms so well).
On other forums, however, I have found that many people assume that because the Proclamation uses the word “gender” rather than “sex,” that it must not be talking about chromosomes. Instead, they conclude that it is talking about gender as a social construct–more like “transgendered” people feeling like they belong to the gender opposite that of their biological sex. That assumption changes the question completely.
My response–that the Proclamation’s use of “gender” is just a euphemism for “sex”–has generally been met with derisive laughter.
Bookslinger, sexual reassignment intervention on a patient who can’t participate in the decision (an infant or young child) seems grossly unethical and half the time will likely result in the worst possible outcome. I think it’s far more complicated than “Oh, this is an XY infant w/ a vagina and undescended testicles, let’s intervene and make him as male looking as possible”
You guys skipped the intersexed chimera phenomenon of male and female zygotes joining to from a single mosaic individual. I’m sure there are other intersexed conditions we’ve omitted.
On the general/exceptions preaching thing, past LDS preaching has precluded the possibility that some are born gay or transgendered. While I’ve already said I reject that position as unwise and cruel, it’s out there. It’s never been modified or withdrawn. It seems the faithful LDS gay or transgendered person has no exceptions to personally workout for themselves.
Steve, how would you like the exception to be worked out? Something along these lines, perhaps: “President Packer is a prophet, seer and revelator, but since I now disagree with what he says, I reject him and his words no longer apply to me.”
That seems to be what you’ve worked out for yourself.
Itbugaf, I could type out a laundry list of reasons of why I have chosen to write off a certain apostle as a false prophet. Almost all those issues and a general discussion about a particular apostle would be off-topic. My point was it’s kind of silly to say apostles address general situations and not the exceptions, when some apostles specifically close the door to the possibility of some exceptions. BKP claiming special knowledge that chaos is excluded from sexual orientation during fetal development, but allowed in virtually all other aspects of our existence, is not only nonsensical to an objective person, it’s cruel to those personally dealing with these issues.
“Are all spirits the same gender as the bodies they inhabit?”
I sure hope so. I would hate to live my life out as a man and then realize after I die that I am a woman!
The transgendered issue is a weird one that I would rather not think about. Luckily, the Lord is the one that is in charge of our souls.
As far as having children at home. I know one thing for sure, if we had attempted delivery at home for our first child, he would not be here today.
Boyd K Packer is a false prophet? Someone better tell President Hinckley, we have all been deceived…
Ian
I am not trying to say everyone should have their babies at home. I was only commenting that we have our babies at home. That’s all I care about. Well, all I care about when having babies.
oh and if you are referring to pres young’s thoughts, he didn’t specify at home or elsewhere, he just talks about doctors attending births. (I think it was on another post i mentioned homebirth, sorry, got mixed up)
“I know one thing for sure, if we had attempted delivery at home for our first child, he would not be here today.”
I don’t think anyone was saying you should have had your baby at home, Ian.
I believe the proclamation on the family has words to that effect.
One of the tricks of nature in a fallen world is that some bodies are ambiguous as their maleness or femaleness.
It’s a BKPism I can’t buy into. I’m not even sure we were sexed in the preexistance, since we weren’t reproductive beings then. Perhaps we had a proto-sexuality? Itbugaf brings up a good point about those born intersexed.
I’m not raising this to question the teachings of President Packer or the teachings of the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (in the Proclamation on the Family). I just raise the point (which, by the way, President Packer raises, too) to point out that not every spirit–which did indeed have a male or female identity before coming to earth–gets to inhabit a body that is clearly male or female.
So which side of the temple are intersexed people supposed to sit on? I know that might sound snarky, but it’s a question I seriously have pondered.
Furthermore, what if an ambiguously gendered person happens to marry someone of the same gender as their supposedly gender defined spirit? Is it a transgression? Can these people remain married in the next life? What is the deal?
Jeff, many years ago I had a “lesbian” neighbor marry her lover, which “she” could do back then because she was genetically male. I have no answer on the spiritual implications.
Itbugaf, BKP lost me when he said no one is born gay or transgendered. To deny chaos in some aspects of our existence and except it in all other aspects is ridiculous. While I don’t know if some are born that way or not, I do know BKP claiming special knowledge on this question is cruel.
Eric,
The Proclamation simply says gender is a essential characteristic. It doesn’t go so far as to say that the gender of spirit is equivalent to the gender of body.
Steve EM: If you deny that President Packer can claim special knowledge, then I have to assume you reject him outright as a prophet, seer or revelator. Prophets, seers and revelators have special knowledge. Do you disagree?
ltbugaf
do you believe that every word that proceeds out of a prophet’s mouth is divine revelation? are they not entitled to personal opinion?
so when bruce r. mc conkie said that blacks were black and didn’t recieve the priesthood for a period of time because they were less valiant in the pre-existence, that this was from God?
and if so, how do you explain it when the first presidency told him to remove that from mormon doctrine?
also, (we can go on and on) when brigham young told women to stay away from doctors when having their babies, do you agree with that? ( i do at least for me but that’s a whole other topic).
my feelinig is that when we are told it is from God, it is. but they are still entitled to have personal opinions on issues. for another example joseph fielding smith was a vegetarian, does that mean everyone should be?
I don’t think President Packer was offering his own personal speculations about the male or female identity of spirits. Do you?
i don’t know.
however, it seems to me that you believe every solitary word that proceeds out of the mouth of a prophet is straight from God and that upon receiving the call they become deity or at least close to it. i believe the prophet. I know he speaks for Heavenly Father. But I recognise that he doesn’t always, at every moment of the day, speak for the Lord. sometimes he speaks for himself. when he is speaking for the Lord it is pretty clear.
also it seems to me that you feel we should blindly follow the counsel of the prophet without studying it out for ourselves. i hope you don’t believe this. having faith is one thing (and very important and necessary) but being blind followers without using our brains is another.
Itbugaf, It’s probably best I not to comment further on BKP, as my views have been posted elsewhere and would be off-topic. But I will pose a general question: are you saying a modern apostle can’t become one of the false prophets Jesus warned us about?
Oh snap!
Did Steve just go off on Packer?
=)
Steve, I don’t believe President Packer is a false Prophet. I’m sorry you’ve reached the opposite conclusion. I don’t suppose there’s any more to say.
Mary said, “…you believe every solitary word that proceeds out of the mouth of a prophet is straight from God…”
It’s interesting how often people say this, even though I’ve never said any such thing. What I HAVE said and what I DO say is that when the Prophet tells us to do something we should do it. This idea provokes a remarkably indignant response on this ‘blog.
What about when the prophet says something that doesn’t require action; like a principle or idea?
In that case I assume the Prophet is correct until proven otherwise; your position seems to be the opposite.
Itbugaf, I already said I don’t wish to comment further on BKP. I asked a general question and am interested in your thoughts.
Steve EM:
Yes, there’s getting to be quite a pattern on these threads of people saying, “No, I won’t tell you what I believe. Just tell me what YOU believe.”
If you’re interested in my thoughts, read them. I already gave them.
Itbugaf, ok, since you seem intent on me categorically stating my specific views on BKP. I confirm your conclusion above is correct. My views have been posted elsewhere and I didn’t see any need to do so here. I hope we can agree to disagree about BKP.
Now, putting BKP aside, I’m still interested in your thoughts on my general question.
I don’t assume the prophet is incorrect.
You mean, do I believe it is impossible for a modern apostle to become a false prophet? To believe that I would have to believe that a man loses his agency when he is ordained to the apostleship. Obviously, he doesn’t. I would likewise have to ignore the history of apostasy among some of the early apostles of this dispensation, of which I am perfectly aware.
ltbugaf
ok, well like i said it SEEMS this way. but what if the prophet expresses a personal opinion but isn’t actually TELLING us to do something. i just get the impression that you think the prophet is always telling us what to do. you seem to have the idea that a number of us are constantly ignoring the prophet, when that isn’t the case.
as i said earlier, sometimes they can state their own opinion, even when giving advice. like when brigham young said that women should avoid doctors in birth. do you think he was speaking divinely?
I doubt that any woman suffered for avoiding doctor care in childbirth during the time that President Young’s advice was given. The field of obstetrics was poorly developed and well-meaning physicians were often doing more harm than good. I imagine many women benefited from following President Young’s advice at the time.
Was he speaking divinely? I don’t know. I don’t know what the context was. President Young wore a lot of hats–Territorial Governor, Indian affairs agent, Church President, carpenter, and on and on. I think in his time, in particular, the roles tended to mesh and overlap a lot. What role was he in when he spoke those words? I don’t know.
But am I convinced that those who followed his counsel were blessed for it? Yes.
well than i am certainly being blessed.
actually if we want to get technical, obstetrics hasn’t improved the outcome of births, hygeine has.
but that really is another topic.
Hygiene has improved the practice of obstetrics.
It’s funny…this is really just the same discussion we had in November under the Relief Society Funding post.
That’s the one where Kim posted quotes from Brigham Young about how we have to seek confirmation from the Lord rather than just follow leaders blindly. (But if Brigham Young was just expressing his opinion, why should we care what he said?)
Kim:
I think you are over simplifying the statement in the proclamation. Here is the full sentence:
Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
This says that our gender was premortal and is eternal. It certainly seems to at least suggest that this gender is continuous through all phases of our existence. I think it is a real stretch to interpret this in any other way.
yes it has, but obstetric practice (i.e. interventions) have not improved the outcome of childbirth.
i care what all the prophets say. if i didn’t i would be a member of the church.
Mary, I respectfully disagree in that I think the advancement of obstetric science has allowed many “problem” pregnancies to produce healthy babies that otherwise would have died either in utero or while being born.
But as you’ve already said, we’re pretty far off the topic.
you can disagree, but research has shown that it hasn’t improved the outcome.
however when there IS a need for intervention, the safer techniques are there, but interfering before the fact doesn’t improve it. as far as improving it via obstetrics, no it hasn’t. hygeine, social support and nutrition actually improve the outcome of pregnancy and childbirth. more knowledge of proper nutrition during pregnancy has created safer pregnancies and birth, but this is not due to obstetrics, it’s due to better health education.
Eric,
I don’t see how I am over-simplifying it. I said that the Proclamation states gender is an essential characteristic, which your previous comments also says.
While it does say this characteristic is essential to our identity and purpose, that doesn’t mean that the gender of our spirits and the gender of our bodies are the same. Certainly we can assume that it suggests it’s continuous, but it doesn’t say that; that’s simply an interpretation of what it does say.
When I was a kid I saw an episode of the Merv Griffin talk show when he interviewed the first person known to have sexual reassignment surgery, Christine Jorgensen. Ever since then I’ve paid attention in biology and science classes.
There are lots of terms involved that people use incorrectly: transgendered, intersexed, and hermaphrodite all describe different situations.
DNA analysis that finds out the X and Y chromosomes has helped people determine whether they are genetically male (XY), genetically female (XX), or geneticaally hermaphrodite (XXY).
Birth defects involving reproductive organs then add another dimension.
When understanding the public pronouncements of apostles and prophets, it helps to know they are discussing “the rule” and not “the exception”. See here.
“The rule” spoken by BKP would involve someone with normal DNA: XX or XY; such as a person born with normal male reproductive organs corresponding to their XY DNA pair, or someone born with normal female reproductive organs corresponding to their XX DNA pair.
“Transgender” usually refers to someone who has the normal reproductive organs corresponding to their DNA, but “feels” they are someone of the opposite sex.
“Intersexed” would be someone who has either normal XX or normal XY chromosomes, but whose reproductive organs are ambiguous, or who appears to have the external organs of both sexes. Such a person who appears to have the external organs of both sexes is not a true hermaphrodite, but is often incorrectly labeled as a hermaphrodite. (I’ll discuss a ‘true hermaphrodite’ in a later paragraph.) As long as their XX or XY chromosome pair is identifiable, they do not suffer a genetic defect, but are more correctly described as suffering a birth defect or congenital defect.
Babies born in this condition, once having their XX/XY pair determined, can have surgery so their external organs more closely match their genetic (XX/XY) sex. Prior to DNA analysis, doctors made a “best guess”, but often guessed incorrectly. Even after DNA analysis became available, it took a while to understand the genetic influence on sex/gender, and parents/doctors sometimes chose corrective surgery that went against the XX/XY chromosome pair, choosing the sex which most closely matched what the surgeon had to work with. Such “shortest path” surguries which went against genetic (XX/XY) sex, also resulted in tragedies.
Apparent versus true hermaphrodites.
An apparent hermaphrodite may appear to have external sex organs of both sexes, but does not have both testes and ovaries. An apparent hermaphrodite has either XX or XY chromosomes, and parents of such babies are generally counseled to have corrective surgery which brings things in line with their sex as determined by the XX/XY pair of chromosomes.
Regardless of whether the sex organs are ambiguous, or it appears that both male and female external organs are present, the presence of XX or XY chromosomes pretty much determines the sex of the individual, as every cell in their body is either male (xy) or female (xx).
Another factor is that regardless of external appearance, babies with XX (female) chromosomes aren’t born with testes, and babies with XY (male) chromosomes aren’t born with ovaries. (If so, they would be even more rare than true hermaphrodites.)
With an identifiable XX or XY chromosome pair, doctors and scientists can tell the parents, regardless of the condition of the baby’s reproductive organs: “This baby is genetically male” or “This baby is genetically female.”
The XX or XY pair appears in every cell of the human body except gametes (sperm cell or egg cell) which only have 1/2 of the chromosomes.
A true hermaphrodite is defined by having XXY chromosomes, a triplet instead of a pair. A true hermaphrodite can, but not always, have both testes and ovaries.
A true genetic hermaphrodite, an “XXY”, who are even rarer than those born with ambiguous external organs, is the only situation where doctors and geneticists can truely say “we have no basis to make a call of male or female.”
True genetic hermaphrodites (XXY’s) do not always have complete sets of both male and female reproductive organs. One set may be more fully formed than the other, or there may be ambiguity as in the case of aparrent hermaphrodites.
My understanding is that in cases of clear XX or XY chromosomes, but with ambiguous organs, doctors recommend corrective surgery in infancy or very early childhood.
I don’t know what the latest recommendations are in cases of true XXY hermaphrodites.
—-
My belief: I believe if someone has identifiable XX or XY chromosomes, regardless of any birth defects, then their spirit corresponds to their genetic sex. The only true question would be for those born with XXY.
Thank you, Bookslinger.
When understanding the public pronouncements of apostles and prophets, it helps to know they are discussing “the rule†and not “the exceptionâ€.
Here is a similar message by Dallin H. Oaks:
As a General Authority, it is my responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord. Dallin H. Oaks, CES Fireside for Young Adults, May 1, 2005, Oakland, California.
As a matter of fact, I was thinking specifically of XXY folks when I posted above.
I appreciate what’s been posted about rules vs. exceptions. It’s a daunting spiritual responsibility to be responsible for one’s own exception. You have to do so without just making excuses for yourself: “I know the Prophet said to do this but that’s not the way I like to do it, so I’m an exception…”
Kim:
The important part of the sentence that you appear to be intentionally leaving out is the words premortal and eternal. I think if you objectively take the entire sentence as it is written it clearly answers the question.
Eric, please see the thread entitled “Who Am I?”
Kim won’t budge.
I’m beginning to realize that.
think not?
Let me give you an example. Kim can and will change his mind if there is enough evidence in order to do so.
For example, when we were first married there was NO way he was going to consider homebirth for our children. As well, there was no way he was going to consider homeschooling for our children.
However all of our children have not only been born at home, we also homeschool and he is an adamant support for both these ideas now. That’s just two examples, I could give you myriads more.
Kim is not immoveable, he just requires more information then “just because”.
I am not leaving it out, Eric. My statement has been all inclusive.
Considering that outside this tiny speck of mortal life on the scale of our existence, our identity is defined by our spirits, I’m not sure we can go so far as saying the identity of our spirits and that of our bodies is the same (gender characteristics or otherwise).
“Kim can and will change his mind if there is enough evidence in order to do so.”
Actually, I haven’t made up my mind on this issue. I have not specified my opinion on the matter.
I generally agree with Bookslinger (who deserves thanks for clarifying the terms so well).
On other forums, however, I have found that many people assume that because the Proclamation uses the word “gender” rather than “sex,” that it must not be talking about chromosomes. Instead, they conclude that it is talking about gender as a social construct–more like “transgendered” people feeling like they belong to the gender opposite that of their biological sex. That assumption changes the question completely.
My response–that the Proclamation’s use of “gender” is just a euphemism for “sex”–has generally been met with derisive laughter.
Bookslinger, sexual reassignment intervention on a patient who can’t participate in the decision (an infant or young child) seems grossly unethical and half the time will likely result in the worst possible outcome. I think it’s far more complicated than “Oh, this is an XY infant w/ a vagina and undescended testicles, let’s intervene and make him as male looking as possible”
You guys skipped the intersexed chimera phenomenon of male and female zygotes joining to from a single mosaic individual. I’m sure there are other intersexed conditions we’ve omitted.
On the general/exceptions preaching thing, past LDS preaching has precluded the possibility that some are born gay or transgendered. While I’ve already said I reject that position as unwise and cruel, it’s out there. It’s never been modified or withdrawn. It seems the faithful LDS gay or transgendered person has no exceptions to personally workout for themselves.
Steve, how would you like the exception to be worked out? Something along these lines, perhaps: “President Packer is a prophet, seer and revelator, but since I now disagree with what he says, I reject him and his words no longer apply to me.”
That seems to be what you’ve worked out for yourself.
Itbugaf, I could type out a laundry list of reasons of why I have chosen to write off a certain apostle as a false prophet. Almost all those issues and a general discussion about a particular apostle would be off-topic. My point was it’s kind of silly to say apostles address general situations and not the exceptions, when some apostles specifically close the door to the possibility of some exceptions. BKP claiming special knowledge that chaos is excluded from sexual orientation during fetal development, but allowed in virtually all other aspects of our existence, is not only nonsensical to an objective person, it’s cruel to those personally dealing with these issues.
“Are all spirits the same gender as the bodies they inhabit?”
I sure hope so. I would hate to live my life out as a man and then realize after I die that I am a woman!
The transgendered issue is a weird one that I would rather not think about. Luckily, the Lord is the one that is in charge of our souls.
As far as having children at home. I know one thing for sure, if we had attempted delivery at home for our first child, he would not be here today.
Boyd K Packer is a false prophet? Someone better tell President Hinckley, we have all been deceived…
Ian
I am not trying to say everyone should have their babies at home. I was only commenting that we have our babies at home. That’s all I care about. Well, all I care about when having babies.
oh and if you are referring to pres young’s thoughts, he didn’t specify at home or elsewhere, he just talks about doctors attending births. (I think it was on another post i mentioned homebirth, sorry, got mixed up)
“I know one thing for sure, if we had attempted delivery at home for our first child, he would not be here today.”
I don’t think anyone was saying you should have had your baby at home, Ian.