person0

Actually, I am so grateful that my Bishop does not currently have the permission or authority to make an announcement like that.  The reason is because my wife and I fought for over a year and were able to get our Area Presidency to officially clarify that leaders in our Area should avoid anything that could be perceived as affirmation of or support for a gender transition, including the use of preferred pronouns that do not match a member's biological sex.
It all started when one of my children was being impacted and we disagreed with ward leaders regarding the final section you quoted from the handbook.
More important than the 'may', this passage only grants permission to record the name, and then separately to use the name.  It does not grant permission to use pronouns in any way, shape, or form.  The text only recognizes that an individual may decide to change their pronouns for themselves.  Members/leaders who then choose to grant themselves permission to use those pronouns, are adding in that which is neither expressly nor incidentally permitted by the text.
Of course I would welcome Sheila into the Ward, and strive to treat Sheila with the love and respect our Savior expects of us.

Wow! Good for you and your local authorities for making the hard right choice.

Sister Shelia -- No.
Sheila -- Yes.
Shelia isn't a "sister". The name change doesn't change the biological sex and eternal gender of the individual. "Sister" Shelia does, and Satan rejoices in such loving support that will confuse children and potentially cause (which already has) them to commit sin they would have never without cultural acceptance.

Actually, I am so grateful that my Bishop does not currently have the permission or authority to make an announcement like that.  The reason is because my wife and I fought for over a year and were able to get our Area Presidency to officially clarify that leaders in our Area should avoid anything that could be perceived as affirmation of or support for a gender transition, including the use of preferred pronouns that do not match a member's biological sex.
It all started when one of my children was being impacted and we disagreed with ward leaders regarding the final section you quoted from the handbook.
More important than the 'may', this passage only grants permission to record the name, and then separately to use the name.  It does not grant permission to use pronouns in any way, shape, or form.  The text only recognizes that an individual may decide to change their pronouns for themselves.  Members/leaders who then choose to grant themselves permission to use those pronouns, are adding in that which is neither expressly nor incidentally permitted by the text.
Of course I would welcome Sheila into the Ward, and strive to treat Sheila with the love and respect our Savior expects of us.

I advocate for this methodology as both kind and honest.
I don't really think it is debatable.  Using a pronoun that is not eternally/biologically accurate is deceitful at best.  Outside of being completely oblivious, any excuse to knowingly use them is to participate in deceiving our fellow man.  Not only is one affirming a false and self-destructive decision of the individual, they are actively participating in both deceiving those around them who may be oblivious into believing the gender identity is real, as well as setting a bad example to others who may know the truth by participating in social pressure to also engage in the deceptive behavior and acceptance of the false identity as reality.  Unfortunately, there is no middle ground option here.

As to Elder Oaks having your back, I would encourage you to consider his perspective on this specific topic:
I believe it is very clear that changing one's language in ways that confuse or alter gender would fall into that category.  The laxity of members in acknowledging this will further contribute to it being enabled to spread more rapidly.  We must "Stand for Truth", albeit with love and as much kindness as possible within the confines of the absolute truth of the Restored Gospel.

I advocate for this methodology as both kind and honest.
I don't really think it is debatable.  Using a pronoun that is not eternally/biologically accurate is deceitful at best.  Outside of being completely oblivious, any excuse to knowingly use them is to participate in deceiving our fellow man.  Not only is one affirming a false and self-destructive decision of the individual, they are actively participating in both deceiving those around them who may be oblivious into believing the gender identity is real, as well as setting a bad example to others who may know the truth by participating in social pressure to also engage in the deceptive behavior and acceptance of the false identity as reality.  Unfortunately, there is no middle ground option here.

As to Elder Oaks having your back, I would encourage you to consider his perspective on this specific topic:
I believe it is very clear that changing one's language in ways that confuse or alter gender would fall into that category.  The laxity of members in acknowledging this will further contribute to it being enabled to spread more rapidly.  We must "Stand for Truth", albeit with love and as much kindness as possible within the confines of the absolute truth of the Restored Gospel.

If a physics degree is necessary to be a perpetrator of this phenomenon, I think I better go get me one, because I point stuff like that out all the time to my wife! 😆

If a physics degree is necessary to be a perpetrator of this phenomenon, I think I better go get me one, because I point stuff like that out all the time to my wife! 😆

This is an issue that has plagued my ward for years now.  I really appreciate that he taught that Church leaders and teachers have the responsibility to teach the truths of the gospel.  One cannot effectively teach the truth if in one breath they teach the family proclamation, and in the next they refer to someone using eternally/biologically inaccurate pronouns; in doing so, they sacrifice the truth and tear down their own witness.
I appreciate the entirety of his answer, but that part struck me as an excellent way to lead out.
I appreciate the way he noted the parable.  I think what may be lost on many is that in the parable, while the accusers are turned away from their judgement, the woman is also instructed to turn away from her sins.  When members use pronouns, or engage in 'affirming' behaviors, they are supporting the falsehood or sin.  This would be contextually similar to Christ referring to the woman's partner in the sin, as if he were her husband; doing so would entirely unravel the Savior's instruction.
I appreciate the girl being so bold as to ask, and Elder Oaks being willing to answer.

With a plethora of variations of these for sale, how much more plain and clear could it get?

And what Stake leaders are willing to do about it, if anything.  But yeah, I agree, I just happen to be in one of those areas, unfortunately.  We do our best to teach our kids as well.  We had a very tough battle for a while because one of our children was being led astray and down a destructive path.  She is doing well right now, but she has a long life ahead of her.

I understand completely; however, I think it really depends on the ward and the bishop. I know of a ward in Utah, with a lot of BYU professors that is very LGBTQ activist. My ward is very Church supported when it comes to this doctrine with a few members who (I'm being as kind as possible) are misguided. They have inverted the two great commandments.
In light of this, I would all the more say Family centered gospel teaching is more important now than any other time since the beginning of the restoration. I have a brother-in-law who is gay. We love him. We open our arms to him; however, he also knows very well where we stand. We have never shied our kids from him - no way. We have taught and been very clear (at least I thought my wife and I were "VERY" clear until my oldest son one day a few years back said, "I had no clue he was gay" -- Doh! Needless to say, it shows how an eight year old, a ten year old, and a 14 year truly listen to their parents -- lol) with regards to the Savior's teachings.
But once he knew and understood his love for his uncle never changed, because it is what has been taught. His love for the Savior and his way, his truth, and light also didn't change just because he has an uncle who is gay. If the Church ward is not supportive it can be very hard because we are now coming to the time where because something is "culturally accepted" now it will occur culturally rather than a proclivity. I have seen this in mine own family also.
Let me provide an experience with a high school friend. In high school she had moral standards. Virgin all the way through high school and first year of college (not a member of the Church but her best friends were). Once her member friends went to different schools and missions, after my other friends mission she went to see this friend and the change was drastic. Not only was she sleeping around she had multiple encounters with same-sex (which she was against) intimacy. My friend, who was the closest to her asked her what changed? Her response, "It's just what you do in college." We are now seeing this among members of the Church where the doctrine of Christ is not supported in the wards -- the laughs of the adversary in the background.
As such, we need to be more vigilant and proactive in our teachings and more aware (as far as we can) as to what they are learning. I could go on with regards to this ward in Provo, but it would lead to too much privacy being revealed.

One of my biggest concerns surrounding this whole issue is what feels like the absence of the 'Church Supported' part.  If my kids are going to Church and learning by example to believe that living and acting and speaking in ways that are contrary to God's truth are okay, then I think the other ways the Church provides support become less valuable when weighed together.  If the support received is not one of a firm and unwavering doctrinal foundation that is taught and reinforced, then everything else is just social or financial for some.
I agree.  His answer came across so clear, yet also very much in a 'he who hath ears to hear' kind of way.  I actually don't think the parable was meant for Amy, I think it was more for the small number of members who would be inclined to ridicule and treat the gender dysphoric individual with cruelty.  In the same vein of thought, the members who are supporting inappropriate behaviors through word or deed are also unrepentant about their support for it.  So your analysis applies to them as well.
Ultimately, I am happy to welcome individuals who are struggling with their identity and/or attractions.  And there is plenty of room for members who are not quite there in terms of testimony on those issues.  What concerns me the most is when leaders participate and nothing seems to be done about it at any level, or at least, not without a great effort from the members seeking refuge from this unexpected onslaught.
I never would have imagined that Church could stop being a refuge from the world.  Perhaps this further elevates the importance of temple worship.  At least for now, in the temple these issues can still be escaped, given the barriers to entry there.  Then again, when I think of people changing their speech in the ways they have been, the question comes to mind, "Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?" And I am left wondering how this social contagion can be ignored to allow individual application in that context.

One of my biggest concerns surrounding this whole issue is what feels like the absence of the 'Church Supported' part.  If my kids are going to Church and learning by example to believe that living and acting and speaking in ways that are contrary to God's truth are okay, then I think the other ways the Church provides support become less valuable when weighed together.  If the support received is not one of a firm and unwavering doctrinal foundation that is taught and reinforced, then everything else is just social or financial for some.
I agree.  His answer came across so clear, yet also very much in a 'he who hath ears to hear' kind of way.  I actually don't think the parable was meant for Amy, I think it was more for the small number of members who would be inclined to ridicule and treat the gender dysphoric individual with cruelty.  In the same vein of thought, the members who are supporting inappropriate behaviors through word or deed are also unrepentant about their support for it.  So your analysis applies to them as well.
Ultimately, I am happy to welcome individuals who are struggling with their identity and/or attractions.  And there is plenty of room for members who are not quite there in terms of testimony on those issues.  What concerns me the most is when leaders participate and nothing seems to be done about it at any level, or at least, not without a great effort from the members seeking refuge from this unexpected onslaught.
I never would have imagined that Church could stop being a refuge from the world.  Perhaps this further elevates the importance of temple worship.  At least for now, in the temple these issues can still be escaped, given the barriers to entry there.  Then again, when I think of people changing their speech in the ways they have been, the question comes to mind, "Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?" And I am left wondering how this social contagion can be ignored to allow individual application in that context.

This is an issue that has plagued my ward for years now.  I really appreciate that he taught that Church leaders and teachers have the responsibility to teach the truths of the gospel.  One cannot effectively teach the truth if in one breath they teach the family proclamation, and in the next they refer to someone using eternally/biologically inaccurate pronouns; in doing so, they sacrifice the truth and tear down their own witness.
I appreciate the entirety of his answer, but that part struck me as an excellent way to lead out.
I appreciate the way he noted the parable.  I think what may be lost on many is that in the parable, while the accusers are turned away from their judgement, the woman is also instructed to turn away from her sins.  When members use pronouns, or engage in 'affirming' behaviors, they are supporting the falsehood or sin.  This would be contextually similar to Christ referring to the woman's partner in the sin, as if he were her husband; doing so would entirely unravel the Savior's instruction.
I appreciate the girl being so bold as to ask, and Elder Oaks being willing to answer.

This is an issue that has plagued my ward for years now.  I really appreciate that he taught that Church leaders and teachers have the responsibility to teach the truths of the gospel.  One cannot effectively teach the truth if in one breath they teach the family proclamation, and in the next they refer to someone using eternally/biologically inaccurate pronouns; in doing so, they sacrifice the truth and tear down their own witness.
I appreciate the entirety of his answer, but that part struck me as an excellent way to lead out.
I appreciate the way he noted the parable.  I think what may be lost on many is that in the parable, while the accusers are turned away from their judgement, the woman is also instructed to turn away from her sins.  When members use pronouns, or engage in 'affirming' behaviors, they are supporting the falsehood or sin.  This would be contextually similar to Christ referring to the woman's partner in the sin, as if he were her husband; doing so would entirely unravel the Savior's instruction.
I appreciate the girl being so bold as to ask, and Elder Oaks being willing to answer.

I am a huge fan of Pres Oaks.  But I have a problem with this as a response to the question posed by "Amy."
Using the case of the woman taken in adultery as the answer to the young lady's question makes no sense.
That is not the answer this young lady can give to the girl who thinks she is a boy asking this young lady to dance with her.  
Can you imagine the response?  The woman taken in adultery seemed to be penitent.  This girl pretending to be a boy was not penitent, but actively continuing in sin.  So, to hear "go and sin no more" would be cause for her to call Amy a transphobe.
No.  This is not the solution.
Yes, we need to apply the two great commandments.  But he gave no path or description of how to do that.
This still doesn't say anything about trans or homosexuality.  Why?  Because the Church's position has always been that regardless of what we think or how we feel about sexuality, as long as we control our behavior within the bounds the Lord has set, your feelings and thoughts are of lesser magnitude.
We well know the policy on homosexuality.  An individual with SSA can be a member in good standing so long as they do not act on those impulses.  But today, the LGBT movement has shifted.  It wasn't just someone who has SSA expressing that they are gay.  It is now where cisgendered individuals are being brainwashed into believing they have desires that they never would have had without coercion.
Studies showed that a great majority of those identifying as non-cisgendered, are only saying they are "non-binary" due to social pressure.  They say they are non-binary or even bi-sexual, but they still "prefer" the opposite biological sex in romantic relationships.  
So, the explosion of statistical trans individuals appears to be engineered.  While it is a relief that the number of "real" LGBT individuals is not exploding at the rate we're told, it is disturbing that so many are brainwashed into making such a public declaration that is not what they really believe.

This young lady's question is a question I have been pondering actually for over a month now. At times, I feel I am waiting for our leaders to come out more directly than they have (e.g. the Family Proclamation canonized), and then at times I think they have been very clear but we have members of the Church who still think and believe -- if not canon -- then they teach the philosophies of men mingled with scripture so carefully crafted. The easiest example, "God told us to love," while ignoring that the first great commandment is to love God with all our heart, might, mind, and strength, which means we do exactly that we teach his truth, his way, and his light.
Having family members on both side who are experiencing homosexuality and gender dysphoria it would be nice to see more direct speech. Calling out the wolves so to speak, and yet I openly admit I don't see the way God sees the wheat amongst the tares (who is tare and who is not but God does). I understand, he doesn't want to root up a wheat who appears to be a tare right now.
I believe @laronius hits the nail on the head with proactive parenting; however, I'm not a big fan of calling "Come Follow Me" -- new. This was the Church's teaching this whole time. Teaching of our children was and has always been on the parents. This to me is more evidence that we, collectively, weren't following what the Lord had already taught...now he needed to be more plain rather than us following the teachings and the Spirit.
I have never expected the Church to teach my children. I have always seen it as Church supported -- FAMILY centered. It has never been the other way to me.

Up until the mid 1900s many of the truths we believed in were also reinforced by society. As a result there wasn't a whole lot of need to spend time teaching the "obvious". But then slowly at first and now like a raging torrent society is/has moved further and further away from traditional Christian values. We no longer have the luxury of assuming that our youth will just pick up these values along the way. We can't even assume they will pick them up at church because of wolves in sheep's clothing. It must be taught in the home, from very early on, and completely undiluted. A lot of people think COVID was fulfillment of the foreseen need of increased gospel teaching in the home. I think that was just a trial run. Something far more deadly is infecting society now and will continue to get worse.

The young lady’s letter was insightful.
Many adults in the church are being taught (brainwashed) in schools or their places of work and are bringing their ‘understanding’ back to the classrooms of the church.
I anticipate that we will continue to receive insightful direction from the general authorities in upcoming conferences.
It will take brave local leadership to maintain the integrity of the church.
I’m doing what I can to point out when falsehood bleeds into our classrooms.  
And as parents we do a fair amount of correcting false doctrine that is taught to our children in Sunday School and young men / women activities.

Feels good to know I've been missed!  I uh, guess I've just been a bit sidetracked, lol.  The thought just came to mind to check in.

This is an issue that has plagued my ward for years now.  I really appreciate that he taught that Church leaders and teachers have the responsibility to teach the truths of the gospel.  One cannot effectively teach the truth if in one breath they teach the family proclamation, and in the next they refer to someone using eternally/biologically inaccurate pronouns; in doing so, they sacrifice the truth and tear down their own witness.
I appreciate the entirety of his answer, but that part struck me as an excellent way to lead out.
I appreciate the way he noted the parable.  I think what may be lost on many is that in the parable, while the accusers are turned away from their judgement, the woman is also instructed to turn away from her sins.  When members use pronouns, or engage in 'affirming' behaviors, they are supporting the falsehood or sin.  This would be contextually similar to Christ referring to the woman's partner in the sin, as if he were her husband; doing so would entirely unravel the Savior's instruction.
I appreciate the girl being so bold as to ask, and Elder Oaks being willing to answer.

This is an issue that has plagued my ward for years now.  I really appreciate that he taught that Church leaders and teachers have the responsibility to teach the truths of the gospel.  One cannot effectively teach the truth if in one breath they teach the family proclamation, and in the next they refer to someone using eternally/biologically inaccurate pronouns; in doing so, they sacrifice the truth and tear down their own witness.
I appreciate the entirety of his answer, but that part struck me as an excellent way to lead out.
I appreciate the way he noted the parable.  I think what may be lost on many is that in the parable, while the accusers are turned away from their judgement, the woman is also instructed to turn away from her sins.  When members use pronouns, or engage in 'affirming' behaviors, they are supporting the falsehood or sin.  This would be contextually similar to Christ referring to the woman's partner in the sin, as if he were her husband; doing so would entirely unravel the Savior's instruction.
I appreciate the girl being so bold as to ask, and Elder Oaks being willing to answer.

Feels good to know I've been missed!  I uh, guess I've just been a bit sidetracked, lol.  The thought just came to mind to check in.

This is an issue that has plagued my ward for years now.  I really appreciate that he taught that Church leaders and teachers have the responsibility to teach the truths of the gospel.  One cannot effectively teach the truth if in one breath they teach the family proclamation, and in the next they refer to someone using eternally/biologically inaccurate pronouns; in doing so, they sacrifice the truth and tear down their own witness.
I appreciate the entirety of his answer, but that part struck me as an excellent way to lead out.
I appreciate the way he noted the parable.  I think what may be lost on many is that in the parable, while the accusers are turned away from their judgement, the woman is also instructed to turn away from her sins.  When members use pronouns, or engage in 'affirming' behaviors, they are supporting the falsehood or sin.  This would be contextually similar to Christ referring to the woman's partner in the sin, as if he were her husband; doing so would entirely unravel the Savior's instruction.
I appreciate the girl being so bold as to ask, and Elder Oaks being willing to answer.