Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting

Gender…

mikbone

By mikbone,
in LDS Gospel Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

popatr

popatr

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, mikbone said:

12.5.1

Safeguarding Children

When adults are interacting with children in Church settings, at least two responsible adults should be present. It may be necessary to combine classes to make this possible.

All adults who work with children must complete the children and youth protection training within one month of being sustained (ProtectingChildren.ChurchofJesusChrist.org). They repeat the training every three years thereafter.

 

I know that the above comes from the Primary section but…  In today’s environment its probably a good policy.

My child in seminary does not have two teachers 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LDSGator

LDSGator

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

There were a few times I had no co teacher in Primary.  I propped the door open, sat next to it and requested the Primary Presidency walk by a few times.

The Pence rule has gone from “sort of silly” to “okay, maybe” to “brilliant idea.” One of my closest friends is a girl, and even her I’d never go out with alone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
prisonchaplain

prisonchaplain

Posted
Posted
On 9/4/2023 at 12:15 AM, laronius said:

My go to response for anything that the Bible is not super clear on is:

"You can make the Bible say anything you want. That's why there are so many different Christian churches with conflicting views. It's also why God continues to reveal his word in our day to prophets and that word clearly states that there is only male and female."

This gets said a lot, but it's not true. Most Christian denominations agree on most of what the Bible says. Differences arise more from what is emphasized than what it taught.

It is modern psychology that seems to be "not super clear." DSM-IV labeled transgenderism "gender dysphoria." The most current version does not do so. Why? I suspect it has more to do with politics and history, than with advancements in the field. Apparently, many psychologists believe that the dominant Judeo-Christian culture co-opted psychology in the past, so "errors" must be corrected, and psychology must never again be subservient to religion. 

Even if psychology was co-opted by religion in the past, could we not then argue that it is co-opted by secularism now? Scripture and revelation should be our go-to's. Culture, psychology, and the words of the experts should all serve to give context to our understandings, but they should never trump God's words. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
popatr

popatr

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/3/2023 at 8:45 PM, JohnsonJones said:

Edit:  This is the same pathway which they will use these facts in their arguments, and why it becomes difficult to actually answer the question without falling into other traps where they can argue against the idea of two sexes or genders.

As I said, it's a TRICK question.  If someone is asking about this in regards to Transgendered indivduals or LGBT you need to understand WHY and WHERE they are coming from.

In this instance, they are using the argument that there has always been gender (which is true).  That Gender is a social construct that is utilized in labeling things or identifying things regarding that gendered use (also true).

By simply saying...nah, uh, nani-nani-boo-boo, you are wrong and there are only two...doesn't do anything to effect their argument.  They have stated some true items and you've fallen into their trap.  By trying to say that the facts they use as their reasoning are wrong or false, it simply looks to invalidate your own argument before it even began.  They have facts on their side when they state these things. 

The point isn't to refute the truth that they have backing them, it is to find the flaw in their arguments, or alternatively, not fall into the trap in the first place. 

I see this was the problem when the Gay Marriage came up on the Federal level as well.  The argument the LGBT were making was that Married people got more rights simply from being married than anyone else did.  They felt it was unfair that some people got different rights than others and that those rights should be broadened out to include other groups (such as gay individuals who chose to identify their relationship as a marriage).  That by giving one group more rights than others it was inherently unfair, unjust, and promoted inequality. 

Instead of figuring out a reasoning towards the path that equal rights would or could be extended and yet retain the holiness or sanctity of what we now call a traditional marriage, arguments took a turn that had NOTHING to really do with the actual context or item that the LGBT groups were arguing.  At best it tried to justify giving more rights to some and less rights to others, at worst it simply ignored the argument and tried to make a new one regarding it being just a natural state vs. and unnatural state.  Ignoring the actual argument did nothing to help win the case and Gay Marriage is now the law of the land. 

In the same way, we now have a question regarding how many genders (or sexes) are supported in the Bible.  More directly, Biblical support for more than two genders in the Bible.  This is actually an argument that has been brought up by LGBT specifically BECAUSE no matter how you look at it, the Bible supports more than one gender by most languages it was translated from, and sexes in what it actually defines and talks about.  If you go this route, you CANNOT win the argument in this fashion by simply saying it only talks about two sexes in Genesis.  Anyone who has a background of study in the language and intricacies of the Bible will instantly realize that this is a trap.  It's a trick and if you follow their line of reasoning, you WILL not win the argument.  It's unwinnable by the facts of the case as presented.

AT least as far as I can see it.  If you think the people asking things or presenting things like this are ignorant you are only fooling yourself.  Many of these are actually well read and well educated in many areas of classical literature, biblical studies, and religious studies.  For LGBT who are using this in regards to religious discussions (it is not just the Bible, if you go through Catholic History or other historical contexts they have many other questions that are basically "trick" questions)  they have a goal and that goal is to tear down religion.

If you don't know the facts in detail (even as a professor and knowledgeable about certain things regarding the background and origins is not enough for many of them) in these types of instances, it is better to try a different approach.  If you say there are only two...they have enough facts that they can bore you for DAYS on the various aspects that prove you wrong from either your Bible or from religious history.  These facts are not wrong, but they MAY be applied in a flawed manner (as you so notate in your post).  They will hit you with a preponderance of evidence.   You will not win this in this manner.

I am saying this as someone who has at least some understanding of the language, the support in the Bible for these things  (as well as in classical literature and in history itself), and why they use this argument to support their own statements in regards to why their take on Transgendered individuals, Homosexual activity, and Homosexual actions are justified in Christian Religions.  This is a trick question and one that is probably not going to go the way you want it to when confronted by individuals who feel that they are justified in LGBTQ acts by the Bible and by religion. 

Instead, if you are going to post there are only two genders or sexes, try a more faith based option.  Use the proclamation for the family then and when asked how it proves such, admit that it is based upon faith and belief on modern day revelation and the right of the General Authorities to receive such revelation.  They can then say all sorts of facts to try to disprove you, but they cannot tell you that you cannot believe or have faith in the way you do.  You have something to back you up and it is then upon them to try to show or prove why this faith or belief is misplaced (and trust me, they will try...).  Bear you Testimony.  This may not have any better chance of convincing them (unless somehow they can feel the spirit and it can turn their heart, which is a better chance then the alternative) but it can help bolster your own faith in light of their arguments.  If they get overly aggressive, leave the conversation.  It can only get nasty and mean if you continue to try to press the issue and they will not let you have your faith or feel the spirit in their heart. 

I have the unfortunate experience to have this occur with multiple young individuals in the university system and can say that bearing your testimony and utilizing your faith and belief in the prophets and modern revelation is a MUCH more solid foundation to build upon than trying to argue the facts with them.

I think that gender different from sex is quite a new concept and am (so far) unconvinced by anything you've said.

To start with, I thought I best go straight to the horses mouth, and ask the lunatics about the "sensitive and correct way" to deal with pronouns in Hebrew.  (or rather I asked google and it connected my with the lunatics answers).  The top results I could find seemed to indicate that this is problematic in hebrew, as you cannot actually communicate with someone about themselves without risking misgendering them from the getgo.  In english we don't have as much problem because "you" (and "they") is neutral, but it appears not to be the case  in hebrew.  You have to talk to them almost like you're not talking to them if you actually want to ask their pronouns with zero mistakes.

Following up my research, I asked if there are any neuter forms in hebrew.  The answer I got was NO.  There are NO neuter nouns in Hebrew.

If the Hebrew language REALLY supported nonbinary I would suggest that they would at least have ways of talking to or about someone without forcing you to place them in a binary by sight.

My thesis therefore is that no matter what other designations exist: "barren" or "eunuch" or "blahblah", that these are at best subcategories of their strong binary, rather than extra options for gender.  So does a woman start as a woman until we find out she's barren and she suddenly changes gender involuntarily?

In general I think it's rather stupid to scrape up a few characteristics that people might be identified by and call it a gender.  I mean we can see this play out right now.  Pronouns and identities multiply as people embrace their lunacy and want to categorize themselves in random and entirely un-useful ways.  "Clownself" and whatnot.

I mean, if we are just scraping together mildly sexual categories maybe we should add "harlot" as a gender identified in the bible.

----

I did some more research into both hebrew and greek, with the aid of google translate and round-trip translation (english-hebrew-english or english-greek-english).  Neither language really has a word for gender.  The hebrew word suggested for "gender" translated back as "sex".  In greek, the round trip word was "genus" like in animal classification.

If the Hebrew language REALLY treated these categories as other genders I think they would have a question to which the appropriate reply might be "man" "woman" "barren" "eunuch".

----

I think the claim that gender is a social construct is pretty lame.  Do animals have gender roles?  Are they social constructs or did God (or nature) create them.  Obviously it's patently absurd to claim that gender has nothing to do with our basic human nature.  If someone says that gender is only emergent with intelligence, then we have to ask the next question: What are the consequences of thinking ourselves our of our designed behavior?  Sometimes it's good.  God gives us commandments and helps us create more stable families with better outcomes.  But only by God's wisdom do we know what actually is better for us than nature.

 

Sometimes it's bad to fight nature.  We are sick mentally and physically and socially because some wise-guy generation decided that it was a good idea to leave both God and nature in the dust.


I think it's clear that gender identity ideology is totally harmful and this is probably detectable scientifically: but not while people are compromised by their false religion.

Edited by popatr
Link to comment
Share on other sites
popatr

popatr

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I was trying to meet those suffering halfway. 🤷‍♂️

By and large they need firmness not compassion.

According to this study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4301205/, about 57% of transgender are narcissists.  And my own take is: "no duh.  And you only caught those who got caught because narcissists don't want to be known as narcissists."

I tried looking for rebuttals but I didn't find a serious critique about the study's methods, only ad hominem attacks of it because it came out of Iran.  And that's fair enough to distrust a source but at some point if the data is bad you should attack the data not the researchers.

Looking for other studies I found another that does support a correlation between GD and other disorders, but they do not specifically mention narcissism; I suspect they didn't want to.  They do state that a fair percentage cluster around "Borderline Personality Disorder" which is a condition which, to me, sounds like a close cousin of narcissism.  This study does have a very large category of illness labelled "not otherwise specified" where narcissism is probably hiding if they tested for it at all.

But it's so obvious to me that by and large, they are narcissists.  It's apparently obvious to others too: https://drzphd.com/dr-z-phd-live-videos/why-you-go-through-narcissistic-inflation-during-transition, as this trans researcher says it's perfectly natural given their situation and tries to dress it up in slightly different terminology or indicate it may be temporary.

Personally I call BS.  They don't just seem narcissitic, they ARE narcissistic and I've never seen this change in my anecdotal experience.

---

Narcissists automatically disqualify themselves from unbridled compassion.  They manipulate nice people, turn them against each other, and eat them for breakfast.

Edited by popatr
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Backroads

Backroads

Posted
Posted
On 9/4/2023 at 2:25 PM, mirkwood said:

There were a few times I had no co teacher in Primary.  I propped the door open, sat next to it and requested the Primary Presidency walk by a few times.

Did this as well a few times until I told the Primary Presidency my assigned partner was clearly unable to participate (My assigned partner at that time was and is a lovely woman, but she had a whole host of issues due to taking care of her daughter-in-law and grandchild on weekends and just didn't have the bandwidth to find subs). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NeuroTypical

NeuroTypical

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, popatr said:

I tried looking for rebuttals but I didn't find a serious critique about the study's methods, only ad hominem attacks of it because it came out of Iran.  And that's fair enough to distrust a source but at some point if the data is bad you should attack the data not the researchers.

How interesting.  Until now, I never even considered the possibility that I'd have to come up with a reason to distrust something coming out of Iran, with a response other than "It's coming out of Iran for pete's sake".  

Ok.  It's state run, which means it operates under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education.  

[digging around the internet a little]

Quote

In 21st century, we witnessed a huge surge in the number of publications in medical journals by Iranian scientists on nearly all areas in basic and clinical medicine. Interdisciplinary research were introduced during 2000s and dual degree programs including Medicine/Science, Medicine/Engineering and Medicine/Public health programs were founded.

Quote

According to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, the number of (full-time equivalent) researchers rose from 711 to 736 per million inhabitants between 2009 and 2010. This corresponds to an increase of more than 2 000 researchers, from 52 256 to 54 813. The world average is 1 083 per million inhabitants. One in four (26%) Iranian researchers is a woman, which is close to the world average (28%).

Quote

The Fifth Five-Year Economic Development Plan (2010–2015) fixed the target of attracting 25 000 foreign students to Iran by 2015. By 2013, there were about 14 000 foreign students attending Iranian universities, most of whom came from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Turkey.

Huh.  I am legitimately surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
prisonchaplain

prisonchaplain

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, popatr said:

By and large they need firmness not compassion....  about 57% of transgender are narcissists. 

Telling a narcissist who believes s/he is the opposite gender from what they were born as that they suffer from a gender dysphoria strikes me as fair, firm, consistent halfway point.  😉 

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LDSGator

LDSGator

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Telling a narcissist

Setting aside my personal feelings about gender transitions, I’ve noticed the word “narcissist” holds no meaning in 2023. It’s the most over used word in the English language. 
 

The word is used just like how non Christians use the phrase “judge not lest ye be judged.” Totally out of context with no understanding what the actual words mean. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Traveler

Traveler

Posted
Posted

I will make a few comments – not so much from a point of religion but rather from the point of science.  In such discussions, I prefer science because in my mind science is more precise and religion (as often seemingly to me) is ambiguous.

In the science of species reproduction, especially of higher vertebrates (of which humans are a species), there are only two genders.  As a side note here; @JohnsonJones  gives excellent reference to arguing (discussing) just about anything based strictly on religious notions – most notably Biblical scripture and the futility of such arguments based mostly in human interpretation and opinions.  In the science of species reproduction (human reproduction) there are two and only two possible genders.  Period.

However, in the science of reality there is not always a clear distinction between the two genders of male (XY) and female (XX).   There can exist in an individual with the genetic condition of XXY but it is important to note that this is (in scientific terms) a genetic DISORDER! by definition.   This is a disorder because there is no possibility for participating in reproduction and propagation of the species by any individual with such a disorder.  At this point I believe it is important to believe that Christians ought to have compassion on those with any genetic disorder and not and attitude of pity.  I would point out that there are many physical disorders that can occur that will render an individual unable to participate in the reproduction and continuation of their species.  Again, I believe Christians should have compassion and not pity for such individuals. 

In the somewhat fuzzy science of psychology the human mind is capable of conjuring up as many genders as can be imagined.   Regardless, of the possible additional genders there are only two possible gender activities (based in genetic XX and XY) that are capable of propagating the species.  This is why in my mind conjuring up more than two genders is pointless in the discussion of propagation (survival) of the species.   Any effort to change the number of genders as social acceptable (according to Chaos Theory – that is the basis of global warming concerns) is catastrophic in preserving the human species.

According to religious concepts of agency and free will – an intelligent individual has the right to define themselves in any way they desire but according to scientific principles, society can only support and encourage such gender understanding that is in support of maintaining and propagating that species.  Or, as defined by the science of evolution, the survival of only the fittest which is the simple reproductive behaviors of two genders – male and female.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NeuroTypical

NeuroTypical

Posted
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Traveler said:

However, in the science of reality there is not always a clear distinction between the two genders of male (XY) and female (XX).   There can exist in an individual with the genetic condition of XXY but it is important to note that this is (in scientific terms) a genetic DISORDER! by definition.   This is a disorder because there is no possibility for participating in reproduction and propagation of the species by any individual with such a disorder.  At this point I believe it is important to believe that Christians ought to have compassion on those with any genetic disorder and not and attitude of pity.  I would point out that there are many physical disorders that can occur that will render an individual unable to participate in the reproduction and continuation of their species.  Again, I believe Christians should have compassion and not pity for such individuals. 

Overall, I'm a fan of the notion that love and compassion should rule our behavior when dealing with other humans, whether they have a genetic disorder or not.   But genetic disorders is just scratching the surface.  There are also chromosomal, hormonal, structural, and developmental disorders that blur the line between male and female.  Here's an old chart from a decade ago that tried to lay it all out in a handy chart:

image.thumb.png.9fd50c8780838f80d53ca2dfae37fb7a.png

I would think 2 things are important to note with this chart:

1- It's important to note that the far left and right - the green and purple "Typical biological female/male" end of the spectrum contains roughly 95% of the human race.  So your overall point of calling these things "disorder" by definition seems valid.  There is obviously and undeniably an "order" from which some people diverge biologically.

2- It's also important to note that in a planet of ~9 billion people, that means roughly 450 million people aren't a typical biological male/female.  And these millions have a wide and diverse range of differences.  Some obvious, some not.  Some impactful on living life, some not.

 

Quote

In the somewhat fuzzy science of psychology the human mind is capable of conjuring up as many genders as can be imagined.   Regardless, of the possible additional genders there are only two possible gender activities (based in genetic XX and XY) that are capable of propagating the species.  This is why in my mind conjuring up more than two genders is pointless in the discussion of propagation (survival) of the species.   Any effort to change the number of genders as social acceptable (according to Chaos Theory – that is the basis of global warming concerns) is catastrophic in preserving the human species.

Agree with your first two sentences.  Not sure I agree with the rest.  Mental illness, stunted intellectual capacity, and related categories are also things that impact a minority of the population.  But few would advocate such a blinder-wearing "you're either healthy or not, smart or not, and we're done talking about it" approach.  For example, folks with ambiguous genetalia, or those born with both sets of genetalia, for example, demand that they (and we) figure out an answer born out of compassion and love that gives them a place in this mortal probation.  And "you're a boy because your penis seems more developed than your uterus" or "you're a girl because breasts and ovulation seem more pronounced than your beard and testicles" often doesn't fit with these folks.  

 

I would also propose a 3rd important thing to note:

3- There are people with an identifiable condition like those displayed in this chart.  When thinking about the human mind aspect, there are also those who don't have any such condition, and yet "feel" like the opposite gender.  There are dysphorias and dysmorphias, and there are also environmentally (culturally) learned beliefs about such things.  Compassion and love for individuals would seem to demand different actions and behaviors for different folks.  The teen girl who spent a week on Instagram and now thinks she's a boy is one thing.  The 5 year old who tries to cut off his own penis because "it's wrong" is something else.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Traveler

Traveler

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

.......

 

Agree with your first two sentences.  Not sure I agree with the rest.  Mental illness, stunted intellectual capacity, and related categories are also things that impact a minority of the population.  But few would advocate such a blinder-wearing "you're either healthy or not, smart or not, and we're done talking about it" approach.  For example, folks with ambiguous genetalia, or those born with both sets of genetalia, for example, demand that they (and we) figure out an answer born out of compassion and love that gives them a place in this mortal probation.  And "you're a boy because your penis seems more developed than your uterus" or "you're a girl because breasts and ovulation seem more pronounced than your beard and testicles" often doesn't fit with these folks.  

 

I would also propose a 3rd important thing to note:

3- There are people with an identifiable condition like those displayed in this chart.  When thinking about the human mind aspect, there are also those who don't have any such condition, and yet "feel" like the opposite gender.  There are dysphorias and dysmorphias, and there are also environmentally (culturally) learned beliefs about such things.  Compassion and love for individuals would seem to demand different actions and behaviors for different folks.  The teen girl who spent a week on Instagram and now thinks she's a boy is one thing.  The 5 year old who tries to cut off his own penis because "it's wrong" is something else.

It is my understanding that cognitive behaviors (capable only in intelligent species and capable individuals within that species) are learned or acquired and are not genetically provided.   As demonstrated by Pavlov – the subject need not be aware of the learned or acquired trigger activity for the behavior. 

From a religious standpoint – I believe we all should think of ourselves as capable of learning and overcoming any behavior we have and wish.  I believe in agency and free will.  I am skeptical of those that think or believe they are incapable of modifying their behavior because of who they are or how G-d made them.  If someone is not capable of agency or free will – why should they be left to determine a outcome?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carborendum

Carborendum

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

1- It's important to note that the far left and right - the green and purple "Typical biological female/male" end of the spectrum contains roughly 95% of the human race.  So your overall point of calling these things "disorder" by definition seems valid.  There is obviously and undeniably an "order" from which some people diverge biologically.

2- It's also important to note that in a planet of ~9 billion people, that means roughly 450 million people aren't a typical biological male/female.  And these millions have a wide and diverse range of differences.  Some obvious, some not.  Some impactful on living life, some not.

Misleading.

What is a "typical biological male/female"?

The far right and left may "only" be 95% of people.  But go just one step inward and you cover 99.5%. Go in one more step into the middle and you get 99.98%.

Not exact numbers, but you get the idea.

Think about why botanists consider common berries (blackberry, raspberry, strawberries, &blueberry, etc.) not "true berries".  But they say that bananas, cucumbers, eggplants, and tomatoes are true berries.  And don't bother talking about a tomato being a fruit or a vegetable.

Why is Pluto not a planet anymore?  Because some people had way too much time on their hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing