Does the Transgender Fish Kobudai Challenge What We Know About Gender?

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, Fifthziff said:

 it is interesting how one human trait is to try to give other animals and species human characteristics that are not physiologically possible.

Oh amen! I hate it when people anthropomorphize dogs, because it's not fair to the dog! 

[Vort]

Anthropomorphizing things doesn't always work out convincingly. Witness Hillary Clinton.

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

Anthropomorphizing things doesn't always work out convincingly. Witness Hillary Clinton.

You are the only person here who makes @Godless look like a right wing republican. 😉

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You are the only person here who makes @Godless look like a right wing republican. 😉

A Bible he'll thump
For the love of Trump.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Vort

[NeuroTypical]

57 minutes ago, Vort said:

Anthropomorphizing things doesn't always work out convincingly. Witness Hillary Clinton.

I'm not sure I should be encouraging this sort of behavior, but

 

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Fifthziff said:

Watching "A Dog's Way Home" movie recently, it is interesting how one human trait is to try to give other animals and species human characteristics that are not physiologically possible.

Oh crap - I need a new avatar!

(Other than that, I agree.)

[Starwatcher]

On 1/18/2019 at 9:57 PM, clbent04 said:

I wasn't trying to justify human sex changes. I'm just curious about how gender might be an eternal characteristic for other life forms.

I've got what amounts to a very odd concept on this, a concept that kind of follows the Hindu model in some way.  You might have been a slime mold once upon a time, but having fulfilled the measure of your creation (as a slime mold), you may have been advanced to a sponge.  And so forth, over billions of years, until you advanced to human.  Gender may not have been an eternal characteristic for you in many of these formats, but by the time you became human your gender had become fixed and eternal.  

Or I may be completely out to lunch.

[Starwatcher]

I guess I am somewhat amused by this because if we're going to go "all in" on transgenderism because a fish species does it, then we ought to go "all in" on polygamy because deer do it.  Or on monogamy because wolves do it.  Or every which way because dogs do it.  Or not at all, because amoeba have no gender.

Last time I checked, we are created in the image of God, not one of his other creations, and as He put it

God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.  (Gen 1:27)

If fish were created in the image of God, well, then, that would be another God, wouldn't you say?

Edited February 2, 2019 by Starwatcher

[clbent04]

22 hours ago, Starwatcher said:

I guess I am somewhat amused by this because if we're going to go "all in" on transgenderism because a fish species does it, then we ought to go "all in" on polygamy because deer do it.  Or on monogamy because wolves do it.  Or every which way because dogs do it.  Or not at all, because amoeba have no gender.

How God's creations behave is not the same as how God designed his creations.  God did not design our behavior.  He gave us mortal bodies that allow us to behave how we want to. 

[Starwatcher]

On 2/3/2019 at 4:38 PM, clbent04 said:

How God's creations behave is not the same as how God designed his creations.  God did not design our behavior.  He gave us mortal bodies that allow us to behave how we want to. 

Of course.  I wrote what I wrote because the OP was implying that just because a fish does A means that so should we.  The fish Kobudai doesn't "decide" to change gender -- or maybe it does, I don't know, but it has both sex organs so it's equipped for it.  Another fish that changes sex is the clownfish -- the one portrayed in "Finding Nemo". The clownfish is a protandrous hermaphrodite, meaning that clownfish are born male, but may change to female according to the social hierarchy of a particular social group.  Nemo doesn't "decide" to change gender.  The dominant male of a female-less group changes to female, and the next most dominant male becomes the breeding male -- the rest stay male but celibate.  

Humans are not hermaphrodites nor protandrous hermaphrodites.  We are obligate anhermaphrodites.

Don't worry, I just made the word up, since there doesn't seem to be one available.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Starwatcher

[NeuroTypical]

On 2/2/2019 at 10:36 AM, Starwatcher said:

I guess I am somewhat amused by this because if we're going to go "all in" on transgenderism because a fish species does it, then we ought to go "all in" on polygamy because deer do it.  Or on monogamy because wolves do it.  Or every which way because dogs do it.  Or not at all, because amoeba have no gender.

Indeed.  It's a totally normal thing for a male lion to show up, kill the current king, kill all his children, and then give all the women a choice - either consent to reproduce with him, or get driven out of the pride.  Bachelor lions follow around prides, plotting and hoping the king will slip up and give the bachelor a chance.  

Roosters are bullies and rapists, but male lions are either lazy horny murderous tyrants, or plotting to be.  And yet, here we backwards humans stand with our stupid laws against such natural behavior. How silly is that?

[niyr]

On 1/18/2019 at 11:20 AM, anatess2 said:

Dude, we're still even debating whether dogs are eternal... i mean shouldn't we first discuss whether all dogs get resurrected?  I mean Joseph Smith said he wants to be with his horse but will all horses be resurrected?  Will ants?  Mosquitoes?

In any case... HUMAN gender is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from animal gender.  You would know this if you spend 2 minutes thinking about your 6th grade Science teacher.  If he was worth his salt.

John saw animals (beasts) in the Celestial Kingdom with Heavenly Father in his vision recorded in Revelation. 

[anatess2]

9 hours ago, niyr said:

John saw animals (beasts) in the Celestial Kingdom with Heavenly Father in his vision recorded in Revelation. 

And?

[niyr]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

And?

You questioned whether animal were eternal and would be resurrected. 

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, niyr said:

You questioned whether animal were eternal and would be resurrected. 

So, you're saying that all animals will be resurrected because John saw animals in the Celestial Kingdom?

[niyr]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

So, you're saying that all animals will be resurrected because John saw animals in the Celestial Kingdom?

I'm saying that we know at least some will be. 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, niyr said:

I'm saying that we know at least some will be. 

Not necessarily.

"John heard the words of the beast giving glory to God, and understood them. God who made the beasts could understand every language spoken by them. The beasts were four of the most noble animals that filled the measure of their creation, and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect. They were like angels in their sphere. We are not told where they came from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John praising and glorifying God.”

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by anatess2

[niyr]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Not necessarily.

"John heard the words of the beast giving glory to God, and understood them. God who made the beasts could understand every language spoken by them. The beasts were four of the most noble animals that filled the measure of their creation, and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect. They were like angels in their sphere. We are not told where they came from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John praising and glorifying God.”

 

Yes, necessarily.

Joseph Smith:

Quote

 

“John saw curious looking beasts in heaven; he saw every creature that was in heaven,—all the beasts, fowls and fish in heaven,—actually there, giving glory to God. How do you prove it? (See Rev. 5:13.) …

“I suppose John saw beings there of a thousand forms, that had been saved from ten thousand times ten thousand earths like this,—strange beasts of which we have no conception: all might be seen in heaven. The grand secret was to show John what there was in heaven. John learned that God glorified Himself by saving all that His hands had made, whether beasts, fowls, fishes or men; and He will glorify Himself with them.” (Teachings, pp. 289–91.)

 

 

Also see D&C 77:2-3

Edited February 7, 2019 by niyr

[anatess2]

13 hours ago, niyr said:

Yes, necessarily.

Joseph Smith:

 

Also see D&C 77:2-3

Did you even READ what I quoted?  It has that same quote you gave on Joseph Smith.  Just because Joseph Smith saw beasts in heaven doesn't mean they were RESURRECTED FROM EARTH.

[niyr]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Did you even READ what I quoted?  It has that same quote you gave on Joseph Smith.  Just because Joseph Smith saw beasts in heaven doesn't mean they were RESURRECTED FROM EARTH.

Not our earth, from other 'earths.' The pattern is set. 

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, niyr said:

Not our earth, from other 'earths.' The pattern is set. 

Sigh.

I don't even know why I bother with this when you're completely just missing the conversation.  Like I told the OP, we still have to go through the discussion of whether the fish kobudai would be resurrected before we can discuss whether it has an eternal gender.

[unixknight]

It's still unclear to me why a transsexual fish has anything to teach humans about our eternal state.

[clbent04]

26 minutes ago, unixknight said:

It's still unclear to me why a transsexual fish has anything to teach humans about our eternal state.

Nothing about our eternal state. I just wonder if other species besides humans have gender as part of their eternal identity (that is, of course, if they are eternal)

[unixknight]

4 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Nothing about our eternal state. I just wonder if other species besides humans have gender as part of their eternal identity (that is, of course, if they are eternal)

I'd speculate that they do, if it's fixed in life.  That's just what rattles around in my head though. 

I was just reacting to where the discussion has gone.

Edited February 7, 2019 by unixknight

[niyr]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Sigh.

I don't even know why I bother with this when you're completely just missing the conversation.  Like I told the OP, we still have to go through the discussion of whether the fish kobudai would be resurrected before we can discuss whether it has an eternal gender.

Not really. You seem to have missed the point where I said that some will be celestialized. That's all I was stating.