Transgender

[GaySaint]

I’ve had a question about this for a long time.

I can’t quote the Church Handbook of Instructions, right?

Ok, as I understand it, a person who undergoes an elective transsexual operation as a member of the church is excommunicated.

But I also understand that persons who have already undergone an elective transsexual operation may be baptized if they are otherwise found worthy in an interview with the mission president or other priesthood leader assigned (I’m assuming this means area authority, or whoever would be needed to grant such permission).

I also understand that this person will not be able to get a temple recommend, or hold the priesthood regardless of gender at birth or current gender expression.

But what about marriage? Is this person allowed to marry and does the church recognize that marriage (civilly - the same as they would recognize any civil marriage)? Could that person’s spouse get a temple recommend? If they consummate the marriage, is it still considered sinful like it would be if a married same-sex couple did?

Now before anyone worries, I am NOT considering any sort of operation, haha – I’m just curious as to how this all fits together, and if anyone knows the way the doctrine or policy currently leans in this regard.

[Just_A_Guy]

That is . . . a really really good question.

[Tarnished]

I have a friend who is a hermaphrodite. She was born with a uterus, and working male genitals. She grew up as a boy but learned during an X-ray that she had a uterus as well. She ended up choosing to be a woman and had basically a sex change done, during this process though she ended up having to have a hysterectomy. Through out all of this she has remained an active member of the church. She has gotten married to another member of the church and though they got married civilly I would not be surprised if later they get sealed in the temple. From what I understand the church had her send them results of a DNA test and as long as the results showed that genetically she was a hermaphrodite she was not excommunicated.

I don't know though how it all would work for someone who had a gender reassignment and then joined the church.

[Gwen]

i would imagine the entire situation would be handed over to a ga for consideration and the final decision. could come up with all kinds of fun what if's with this one. lol

in reality it's not that hard to have your situation handed off to a ga for final decision. i know a woman who was severely abused as a child. she did not grow up in the church. when she got older she went and found one of the men that did the most abuse with the intention of killing him. at the last min she chose not to though she literally scared the mess out of him and for a moment he thought he was dead. years later she joined the church. everything was fine and she was preparing to go to the temple when in the interview the event was brought up and she commented that her only regret was that she didn't kill him. she was red flagged and had to have an interview with a ga before she could get her recommend. i think most anyone would understand and excuse the sentiment she expressed but didn't change the process she had to go through. if that's all it takes it's hard to imagine something as complicated as the op presents would be an easy answer.

[pam]

That is . . . a really really good question.

It is a good question and not something I've ever thought about. I have absolutely no idea the answer on this.

[hordak]

I’ve had a question about this for a long time.

I can’t quote the Church Handbook of Instructions, right?

Ok, as I understand it, a person who undergoes an elective transsexual operation as a member of the church is excommunicated.

But I also understand that persons who have already undergone an elective transsexual operation may be baptized if they are otherwise found worthy in an interview with the mission president or other priesthood leader assigned (I’m assuming this means area authority, or whoever would be needed to grant such permission).

I also understand that this person will not be able to get a temple recommend, or hold the priesthood regardless of gender at birth or current gender expression.

But what about marriage? Is this person allowed to marry and does the church recognize that marriage (civilly - the same as they would recognize any civil marriage)? Could that person’s spouse get a temple recommend? If they consummate the marriage, is it still considered sinful like it would be if a married same-sex couple did?

Now before anyone worries, I am NOT considering any sort of operation, haha – I’m just curious as to how this all fits together, and if anyone knows the way the doctrine or policy currently leans in this regard.

Wow. That is a noggin scratcher:confused:. I would wonder how the Bishop would know? Is "Are you a transsexual?" A normal baptism question? I would suspect if someone believed they were in the wrong body strong enough to get surgery to alter it they would have no reason to discuss it. I.E. Saying "I used to be a man" wouldn't be true because it was the fact the were always a women (in their eyes) that made them get the alterations.

[MarginOfError]

I’ve had a question about this for a long time.

I can’t quote the Church Handbook of Instructions, right?

Ok, as I understand it, a person who undergoes an elective transsexual operation as a member of the church is excommunicated.

Not necessarily. There are a number of factors that could be weighed in this decision. And there are exceptions made for medical circumstances. As with all such matters, I will say this: there may be a typical response, but all such cases should be handled uniquely with the focus of helping the individual progress toward more fully embracing the Savior and the healing power of His Atonement.

If a person is excommunicated for having a transsexual operation, I do not expect that the door to readmission is closed.

But I also understand that persons who have already undergone an elective transsexual operation may be baptized if they are otherwise found worthy in an interview with the mission president or other priesthood leader assigned (I’m assuming this means area authority, or whoever would be needed to grant such permission).

All baptismal candidates are asked if they've ever undergone an elective transsexual procedure. If they have, they are referred to the mission president. Where it goes from there, I do not know. But when the mission president gives the go ahead on the baptism, it's done.

I also understand that this person will not be able to get a temple recommend, or hold the priesthood regardless of gender at birth or current gender expression.

This is correct. Gender is an essential characteristic of eternal identity. It is true that there are circumstances in this life where physical gender is ambiguous or indeterminate, and the Church makes accommodations for such cases that can be medically supported. But in cases which we cannot medically document the ambiguity, we have no way in mortality to determine what the eternal gender is. Such being the case, we cannot determine if the person should or should not hold priesthood, which extends into temple worship. So, it is just as much a doctrinal vaguery as it is a disciplinary measure (I'm not going to deny that it is also disciplinary).

But what about marriage? Is this person allowed to marry and does the church recognize that marriage (civilly - the same as they would recognize any civil marriage)? Could that person’s spouse get a temple recommend? If they consummate the marriage, is it still considered sinful like it would be if a married same-sex couple did?

The Church recognizes legal marriages between parties of the opposite gender. So if a person having had a gender changing operation were to marry a spouse of the opposite (chosen) gender, I do expect that the Church would recognize it. I think it would be up to local leadership to decide if local leadership would officiate in the wedding. I doubt the Church really wants to get that involved in whether consummating such a marriage is sinful or not. Again, it's likely left to local leadership.

I don't know if the spouse could have a temple recommend. One more time, I'll say it's probably up to local leadership. Personally, I'd be more concerned about how the spouse felt about the individual not being allowed to go to the temple and less about the spouse's decision to marry someone who had changed their gender.

Now before anyone worries, I am NOT considering any sort of operation, haha – I’m just curious as to how this all fits together, and if anyone knows the way the doctrine or policy currently leans in this regard.

There's not much in the way of doctrine or policy on this because it's a rare occurrence. For an organization like the Church--which tries to avoid writing policies--such areas are of little interest. If there were a sudden wave of such cases, the Church might pursue it more, but until then, I think they're happy that it doesn't happen very often.

[goodfeeling_]

I have no idea either, but in regards to the priesthood... I know a man who, before baptism, underwent an operation to become a female. Later in life, he met the missionaries and got baptized. He ended up becoming Young Mens president. So, with regards to them not being able to hold the priesthood, I will assume that as YM President, he would have had to have received the priesthood.

[MarginOfError]

I have no idea either, but in regards to the priesthood... I know a man who, before baptism, underwent an operation to become a female. Later in life, he met the missionaries and got baptized. He ended up becoming Young Mens president. So, with regards to them not being able to hold the priesthood, I will assume that as YM President, he would have had to have received the priesthood.

Did he have his operation reversed? either way, the policy is pretty unambiguous that such shouldn't happen.

EDIT: Interesting loophole in the handbooks--I can't find anything that says that the young men president has to be a priesthood holder. In fact, in the paragraph describing who the bishop calls to be young men's president, there's nothing saying that it has to be a man! However, it does refer to "he" throughout the Young Men's president's job description (it refers to "she" for Primary, Young Women, and Relief Society, making me confident that the gender pronoun is intentional). Anyone else see anything different?

Edited September 23, 2010 by MarginOfError

[goodfeeling_]

To answer your question, no he did not have the operation reversed. He did do without makeup and womens clothing, but did still have breasts. Unfortunately, he was not able to control his "desires" and ended up being excommunicated nonetheless. But regardless.

As for the handbook, I dont have a copy with me at the moment, but Im sure it says somewhere that the YM President must hold the priesthood.

Sidenote: we had a ward clerk who was a female :) A sister missionary in fact.

[MarginOfError]

To answer your question, no he did not have the operation reversed. He did do without makeup and womens clothing, but did still have breasts. Unfortunately, he was not able to control his "desires" and ended up being excommunicated nonetheless. But regardless.

As for the handbook, I dont have a copy with me at the moment, but Im sure it says somewhere that the YM President must hold the priesthood.

Sidenote: we had a ward clerk who was a female :) A sister missionary in fact.

How many members attend your unit?

[goodfeeling_]

actively? 150

[MarginOfError]

actively? 150

Weird. You Canucks do some weird things

[GaySaint]

These personal experiences are actually kinda what I was hoping for... and a bishop and stake president's opinion :).

Thanks for the discussion so far. Very interesting...

Moe: I specified that members of the church who undergo elective surgery are exed - because that is what I thought it said in the handbook of instructions... but if you have one there you can check and see if it still says that (will you let me know - if that's allowed?). Although I'm sure the word "elective" could mean different things to different people, it makes sense that there would be consessions for medical reasons (or intersex people like the example provided by Tarnished).

I suppose, as Hordak mentioned, it would actually BE a medical reason from the point of view of the person (making their body match what they believe to be their true gender), but I wonder how much of this point of view the church would take into consideration. I know, I know... it's up to the local leaders, haha.

[MarginOfError]

These personal experiences are actually kinda what I was hoping for... and a bishop and stake president's opinion :).

Thanks for the discussion so far. Very interesting...

Moe: I specified that members of the church who undergo elective surgery are exed - because that is what I thought it said in the handbook of instructions... but if you have one there you can check and see if it still says that (will you let me know - if that's allowed?). Although I'm sure the word "elective" could mean different things to different people, it makes sense that there would be consessions for medical reasons (or intersex people like the example provided by Tarnished).

I did check. The only action that mandates excommunication is murder.

I suppose, as Hordak mentioned, it would actually BE a medical reason from the point of view of the person (making their body match what they believe to be their true gender), but I wonder how much of this point of view the church would take into consideration. I know, I know... it's up to the local leaders, haha.

I have no doubt that everyone considers it to be a medical condition. But is it physiological or psychological? Ideally, we would weigh the decision of whether a person should or should not have a transsexual operation based on knowledge of their eternal gender. Unfortunately, we have no such knowledge, and can only work with the best knowledge our current technology provides us.

[Gwen]

lol i would like to say .... good, having heard from you some of the things your ward did in the past i would say if salt lake knew of it all your entire area would be shut down over night. lol not sure i would assume your area is a good model of what should be happening. no offense intended.

[Daniel2020]

Gender is an eternal characteristic. I see a person who wants/has had a transgender operation as being sort of like Jonah in that the person is running away from the role God assigned him/her in this world.

This is to something I never encountered as a Bishop or member of the Stake Presidency. Those days are long past, and some things are done a little differently today.

It's something I would have sought guidance by prayer. And from a higher ecclesiastical authority.

Shooting from the hip--without the guidance of the HG--I'd say I'd have excommunicated a member having a transgender operation and would have required the operation to be reversed before allowing the person to be rebaptized. That’s the only way I can see that a person could be truly repentant. For all I know I might have required the person to get a reversal operation or be excommunicated.



Had a person joined the church after a transgender operation I don’t think I’d have extended the person a calling. Again, shooting from the hip, without the operation being reversed I don’t see how I could have concluded the person desired to live in harmony with God by obeying his will.

Had I been the person conducting the baptismal interview I would probably have required the person to get an operation reversing the transgender operation to be baptized. Had I found a member of my ward had committed willful murder and then been baptized I would probably excommunicate him/her concluding it wasn't possible for the person to have repented of his/her deed and thus was unable to be a member of the Church. Same sort of reasoning with a person who is unrepentant following a transgerder operation.

As I said, these really aren't questions that can be answered in the abstract. The above, of course, is sort of an "Old Testament, letter of the law" conclusion that the Spirit might modify.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Daniel2020

[rameumptom]

It would be referred to a GA. However, hermaphrodite is different from a transsexual. The transsexual would have to be willing, prior to baptism, to return to living as man/woman from birth, and not continue living as a transsexual. Marriage would have to be as with everyone else in the Church. If the child was a man, then he would have to marry a woman, and if born a woman would have to marry a man. Otherwise, we then have the problem of a homosexual relationship, which would require excommunication.

I'm not sure if the transsexual would be required to have operations to completely reverse previous surgeries. But would have to begin living one's lifestyle as man/woman that the person was at birth.

[slamjet]

This sounds like a case of if you knew it was wrong, then you deal with the consequences. But if you did not have a moral compass, but gained one by accepting the Church and it's doctrines, the Church is willing to take that into consideration.

But I have a problem with the marriage thing. If a reassignment surgery took place and a man became a woman, then that person married another man as a woman but was originally a man, wouldn't that be a homosexual relationship? I know one can be homosexual and still be a member in good standing, even attend the temple as long as they do not act out. But wouldn't that be considered acting out a homosexual desire? Or am I just showing my ignorance of the complexity of human sexuality?

[GaySaint]

Ram: Do you know this for sure? Is there some doctrinal source or do you have personal experience dealing with this? I'm just wondering because what I read didn't specify the need for a person to return to the gender they were at birth.

Does everyone think that perhaps what you believe in regards to whether or not a body can physically reflect the wrong gender of the spirit has something to do with how things would be handled by a church authority? In other words, if you don't believe a man can be born in a woman's body, then every transgendered person is wrong... but those who believe it is genetically possible (and probable in regards to XXY individuals) may take the "between God and the person" view?

My personal opinion is that if there is a possibility for a "genetic mistake" resulting in an XXY chromosome, why couldn't that same type of mistake result in the outward gender not matching the spiritual gender? And I suppose we could talk about those who are XXY, whose parents select one gender because it is, perhaps, more dominant - only to be found out later they chose wrong (or did they?).

Slamjet: That is, in essence, my original question. As a man, would I have to marry a FTM transgendered person, or a MTF transgendered person to maintain my membership in the church (assuming I was a member and married a transgendered individual who was baptized)?

[Tarnished]

Gender is an eternal characteristic. I see a person who wants/has had a transgender operation as being sort of like Jonah in that the person is running away from the role God assigned him/her in this world.

This is to something I never encountered as a Bishop or member of the Stake Presidency. Those days are long past, and some things are done a little differently today.

It's something I would have sought guidance by prayer. And from a higher ecclesiastical authority.

Shooting from the hip--without the guidance of the HG--I'd say I'd have excommunicated a member having a transgender operation and would have required the operation to be reversed before allowing the person to be rebaptized. That’s the only way I can see that a person could be truly repentant. For all I know I might have required the person to get a reversal operation or be excommunicated.

Had a person joined the church after a transgender operation I don’t think I’d have extended the person a calling. Again, shooting from the hip, without the operation being reversed I don’t see how I could have concluded the person desired to live in harmony with God by obeying his will.

Had I been the person conducting the baptismal interview I would probably have required the person to get an operation reversing the transgender operation to be baptized. Had I found a member of my ward had committed willful murder and then been baptized I would probably excommunicate him/her concluding it wasn't possible for the person to have repented of his/her deed and thus was unable to be a member of the Church. Same sort of reasoning with a person who is unrepentant following a transgerder operation.

As I said, these really aren't questions that can be answered in the abstract. The above, of course, is sort of an "Old Testament, letter of the law" conclusion that the Spirit might modify.

How would you deal with a hermaphrodite though? Like in the case of my friend. My friend had both sets of sexual organs, so which gender were they? Were they a male because they had the male genitalia or were they a woman because they had a uterus (which by the way did menstruate)? It is a difficult question because there are unique cases out there like that of my friend where the letter of the law doesn't quite cover the case.

[Moksha]

I think it is always an interesting question of how we handle deviation from the norm. Chickens do not handle it well and will peck the eyes out of chickens who are different. Others, such as Unitarians seem more adaptable and will welcome all.

[skippy740]

Just to clarify -

Those who were/are members of the church and end up choosing some sort of gender change would go through their Bishop/Stake President regarding their membership status.

Yet, those who are looking to become a member, they are asked certain questions by a missionary District Leader/Zone Leader. There are a certain set of questions asked all at once (including homo-sexual or other such activity) - where if the answer is "yes", then the candidate for baptism needs to be interviewed with a member of the local Mission Presidency.

(They are asked all as one question so the missionary doesn't need to learn about any specific sin that may need to get cleared up.)

I think it would be easier for someone to become a NEW member of the church after such operation than to change sex after you've BEEN a member of the church.

Just my opinion.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Does everyone think that perhaps what you believe in regards to whether or not a body can physically reflect the wrong gender of the spirit has something to do with how things would be handled by a church authority? In other words, if you don't believe a man can be born in a woman's body, then every transgendered person is wrong... but those who believe it is genetically possible (and probable in regards to XXY individuals) may take the "between God and the person" view?

My personal opinion is that if there is a possibility for a "genetic mistake" resulting in an XXY chromosome, why couldn't that same type of mistake result in the outward gender not matching the spiritual gender? And I suppose we could talk about those who are XXY, whose parents select one gender because it is, perhaps, more dominant - only to be found out later they chose wrong (or did they?).

Nice try GS, but Heavenly Father doesn't make mistakes when sending spirits down to their bodies. It's a trial, just like any other trial. What you're suggesting is just another example of unwillingness to conform to His will to be what we originally were in heaven, and by extension what He wants us to be in this life and eternally. These genetic mutations are just another example of the onset of disease which has presented itself after the fall of man.

As far as those unfortunate genetic mutations go, I'm pretty certain that either the parents of the hermaphrodite or the hermaphrodite themselves should seek out the Lord regarding which gender they were meant to have eternally. Then physical changes can be made if necessary.

Edited September 26, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[rameumptom]

GS,

Could it happen that a female spirit be in a male body or vice versa? Perhaps. However, until new revelation comes out to reveal this, we cannot go around living on assumptions.

I personally believe it is more of a genetic/environmental issue than one of the spirit. For example, some people have a genetic predilection towards alcoholism or drug addiction. That does not mean they were addicts in the premortal existence.

The scriptures teach us that each of us has our agency to choose. We can give in to our physical urges, or we can overcome them. Everyone of us has some genetic predispositions. Everyone of us. I know that I could easily be an alcoholic/addict, simply by seeing the alcoholics on my Father's side, and knowing what my disposition tends to be. However, instead of giving in to such a tendency or curiosity, I simply focus on the spiritual strengths I have and refuse to have any alcohol, etc. Abstinence is my key phrase here, just as it is for many recovering addicts of drugs, sex, etc.

We can choose to overcome. Or we can choose to find justifications for our physical desires, genetic or environmental.