I recently was in an online discussion of women who run Relief Society organizations in their wards. One woman asked the group about a married man in the ward who has come out as a woman and wants to attend Relief Society. The question was whether other wards had been through this, and did they have any advice on how to help the Relief Society handle this smoothly.
It’s a difficult question, and a tough situation, and frankly, without knowing more about the situation, there is a lot to understand to be able to determine the best way to help. How does the rest of their family feel? How does his wife feel? Will they be sitting together in Relief Society, or are they at odds? Does this individual plan to transition or just express as a woman?
While many of the responses were tentative and unsure, some other responses really took me aback. There is a lot of hatred among some Church members toward trans people and very little understanding. There is fear related to trans people being a threat to children (under what set of assumptions I don’t know–that’s never been a thing I’ve heard before), and the biggest fear of all, the fear that a “man in a dress” (a mocking way to describe a trans person if ever I’ve heard one) will be in the women’s restroom which one woman claimed was her “safe space” (making me wonder what the heck she’s doing in there). I’ll be honest, I don’t get the bathroom fears at all, for several reasons:
- I’ve worked with trans people who shared a bathroom with me, and it simply wasn’t a big deal.
- There are stall doors in the women’s restroom.
- I don’t pay attention to what’s going on in other stalls. I barely pay attention to what’s going on in my own.
- There are male children traipsing in and out of the women’s restroom ALL THE TIME in my ward, many of whom seem a little old for this.
- The women’s restroom is notoriously bad because apparently men don’t have to change diapers, just women. Where is this so-called “safe space”? Mine’s full of diaper fumes.
- I’ve never checked anyone’s biological sex at Church. Everyone makes those decisions without my intervention. There are plenty of trans people who pass for the gender they express.
- Trans people are far more likely to be victims of violence. Claiming they are a threat to safety isn’t just ironic, but disingenuous.
Unfortunately, there are clearly a few more questions that have to be asked when considering how a ward should handle such a situation: What is the ward’s general temperament toward trans people? Are there individuals in the ward who are hostile and hateful toward trans people? Here are things that people do and say who are hostile toward trans people:
- Deadnaming. Using their pre-trans name, and insisting on referring to them by their former sex, not their gender identity. This was done by many of the most hostile women in this discussion thread.
- Referring to them as a “man in a dress” or other way to make them appear ridiculous and not credible.
- Stating that Church policy is clear and will never change (this is definitely not the case as scientific knowledge is emerging).
- Calling them “perverts.” Again, this was a term that was used in several places in this discussion group. Name calling is pretty clearly a hostile tactic.
- Pointing out that people who are exposed to a trans person are the “real victims” who are being made uncomfortable. Yikes. Enough said on that one.
- Overstating threats and fears, such as the likelihood that the bathroom will become unsafe. With 2 hour church, it’s even less likely the trans person (or any of us) will have to use the bathroom at all.
- Assuming devious intent by the trans person. Those hostile to trans people assume they are intentionally deceiving others to gain access to other gendered spaces for some unstated nefarious purpose.
- Lack of awareness of intersex, that around 0.4 to 1% of births have some form of ambiguous biological sex identification (e.g. unclear genitalia, chromosomal variation, etc.).
- Being too defensive of male / female differences being fundamental to one’s nature, as opposed to acknowledging that there is more variation within gender groups than there is between the genders.
Unfortunately, some of these hostile attitudes are things I suspect go all the way to the top, even though top leaders are trying to understand trans people.
This discussion was honestly more hostile than I expected. But it wasn’t all bad. There were many sisters who expressed compassion. There were a whole lot who (also not great) gave their go-to answer for literally EVERY question asked: let the bishop decide. Ugh. There were a few who mentioned articles on the nature of trans people, and quite a few who talked about gender dysphoria and the psychological distress of the individual if they are rejected. It was mostly a vocal handful who were completely unwilling to be nice to a trans person if one were to show up in their ward.
What do you think?
- Is your ward hostile to trans people or are they more compassionate and willing to listen?
- Will trans people find a place in our Church? If so, how long?
- Would ward members be more welcoming of one of the youth who was trans than they would for a married adult?
Would the Church be more welcoming to a male-to-female trans person or to a female-to-male trans person? Why do you think so?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
As an extremely closeted trans person who’s trying to be a faithful (if heterodex, the only hetero I’ll ever be) member of the church, I’m a lot more scared of the potential insults or even violence of church members against me if I came out than I think they’re scared of me. That fear of rejection cuts deep.
I can’t really say whether my ward accepts or rejects trans people, as I’ve felt so dispirited in my status in the Church that I’ve only attended Sacrament for a while, so I don’t know whether they talk about trans people in the other meetings. Generally they’ve avoided LGBTQ+ topics altogether for Sacrament talks.
I hope trans people will find a place in the church going forward; probably not soon, but hopefully within my lifetime. This post provides a great template for supporting trans people in LDS theology. https://medium.com/@teioh/mormon-theology-says-trans-rights-38f561a1c084
I’m not sure on the last question; I fear that in any ward, people would be convinced that a trans child had been abused or manipulated by someone, and that they wouldn’t be accepting of either the child or a trans adult in the church. I am MTF and I think your story of the cruel RS sisters is how a MTF trans person would be treated, while a FTM trans person would probably just be treated as an eccentric tomboy. So marginally more accepting for a trans man, I think.
Good grief! LGBTQ+ members who identify with their birth gender can’t seem to find full acceptance in the church…..marginal at best. What on earth would make anyone think that trans people would even have a chance??? Light years away….if ever!! Too much covert hate and fear in this religion.
The most inclusive sign I have seen was a outline of a man and an outline of a woman, there was a light spectrum graphic between them that joined the two gender outlines. Underneath the whole graphic was printed the phrase: “Whatever. Just wash your hands.”
Church organizations pick different ways to interact with society. At the most basic level, it comes down to one thing: Do we demand that others look and act like us before we embrace them within the religious culture?
With set expectations of behaviors and dress, it is easy to forget that Christ was a religious radical who hung out with the misfits of his society.
I’m not sure the members are ready to embrace transgender individuals. All I know is recently I was given hope as my bishop really went to bat for my family and my transgender son. My father passed away and the grandsons were asked by my mother to be pallbearers. We asked my son how he felt about participating, he said if grandma was okay with it then he was. My mom is totally fine and shows love to our trans son. My brother and his wife we t to my bishop and discussed our trans son participating….. our bishop said it is not a priesthood ordinance to be a pallbearer and that anyone the family wants to be a pallbearer could be a pall bearer and that it is a silly old tradition that it has to be boys/men only. I am so thankful for a bishop who gets the whole inclusion thing and acceptance! My son is away from home now, but the bishop still asks about him and how he is doing.
Change won’t happen over night, but slowly….
When it comes to sensitive issues like these I think it is best to error on the side of including individuals. As a regular ward member I don’t really see it as my job to regulate who belongs and who doesn’t.
However, I do sympathize with those who are uncomfortable. I don’t believe that a man can ever become a woman and vice versa. I don’t feel any need to be hostile towards these individuals when interacting in polite society but I simply don’t agree with them when they claim they are “a woman in a man’s body”. I can be kind to people I disagree with whether that disagreement is about religion, politics, identity, etc.
Although I hold this position because of both scientific and religious reasons the latter clearly presents a barrier to how integrated trans individuals may feel into the community. Our church has taken a stand against gender fluidity and I don’t think that is going to change in the near future. This conversation reminds me of some pro-life Democrat friends of mine. They have expressed frustration at not feeling valued within the party, and to an extent they are right. It is hard to belong to a community when you hold a belief that is fundamentally at odds with most of the members.
So I think it is our job as ward members to treat trans people like any other person, but I think that trans people need to recognize that they are participating in a community that disagrees with some of their core beliefs. I think some individuals will be able to navigate that successfully and some will not.
I have a very good friend who is trans who attempted to go to relief society years ago. At first her bishop was on board but then changes his mind and read to him the family proclamation. That gender is assigned at birth… It was very rough on her. I think if a person “passes” they could theoretically go to a new ward and be fine but if they transition and try in their old ward… Big fat NOPE! We’re too bigoted for that.
Edit meant to say read to her*! I’m a terrible ally!
At 72 I’ve considered myself an ally to gay people as long back as I can remember being aware of the gender spectrum. But I’ll freely confess I find myself confused by transgenderism. I don’t doubt that it’s a genuine phenomenon and I think I’m required to be compassionate — as much by myself as by my world view and sense of the divine. But for something that seemed particularly unique and rare when I was young and first became aware of Christine Jorgensen, there certainly seem to be surprisingly large communities of people now identifying themselves as transgender. This leaves me disoriented and I haven’t found my own center with this yet.
I will say that I’ve also had the experience of sharing a ladies room with a transgendered cross dressed person. It was in a club in Hollywood. I’m about 5′ tall. This person was well over 6′ and dressed in really flamboyant retro 50s attire in line directly in front of me. It couldn’t have been more outrageous on a superficial level and yet, as hawkgrrrl points out, nothing — just nothing — about the actual act of sharing a public facility for a private activity was threatening or inhibited my personal privacy in any way at all. It’s an experience that I’m sure will stay with me the rest of my life.
So I will work on my personal understanding and comfort level. I will require of myself that I don’t add to the burden of anyone who is facing the challenges of being a minority facing what probably feels like an uphill battle to just exist in the world. One day I may meet a transgender person and get to know them as I’ve been able to know and love many gay friends. And I’ll try to be comfortable and compassionate in my own skin even though the world is full of people who are different from me and challenge my view of the world.
Thank you, hawkgrrrl, for this provocative post. We need to talk about the thing that are most confusing and new to us. We need to think about what is really happening before we go to being threatened by the unfamiliar.
I want to add that I feel fortunate to have had that ladies room experience. Dealing with actual experience is, I think, so much easier and more effective than forming options in the absence of real contact with whatever situation.
And I’d also like to point out that, as always, we need to understand and acknowledge that gender issues occur for people who were born female and well as male. It always seems that we only discuss homosexuality as a male phenomenon. We shouldn’t make the same mistake about transgenderism.
Greg Prince has a chapter on trans facts and issues in his new book, Gay Rights and the Mormon Church. It’s a great intro to the whole issue for Latter-day Saints.
Not that long ago, Pres. Oaks emphasized that a person’s “eternal gender” was the one they were born into. Just when you think we as a Church are making progress, something like this happens and we take a huge step backwards. So no, I don’t see us moving the needle on trans acceptance anytime soon, sadly.
You were reading the post on that Relief Society Facebook page, huh? I tired of that group and eventually left it. Too many leaders trying to get other’s opinions instead of just praying, meditating, and trying to get an answer that would work best for their individual situation. I felt like there were just too many opinions. It was loud noise to me.
If a trans LDS person ever came to me and asked what to do with the church. I would tell them to flee. I have strong reason to believe that they will never find acceptance in the LDS church.
hawkgrrrl, I don’t have an issue with the topic of your post but I do have an issue with the way you’ve presented it. You don’t agree with others who have concerns about trans people attending church and using public restrooms, which is fine, but the way you’ve presented your argument clearly shows no desire to understand their perspective – it’s mocking and dismissive – which leaves your argument rather shallow and self-righteous. Mainly, your whole post comes across as, “I don’t have a problem with trans people so none of the rest of you should either.”
You mock a woman for considering a women’s restroom a “safe place”. Why? Instead of insinuating that the woman is doing something inappropriate in there that she wants to keep private why not try to actually understand her perspective? Why does she consider it a “safe place”, what does that mean for her? You list several reasons why you don’t get the bathroom fears, which is fine for explaining your perspective, but everything you’ve listed is simply your experience and your perspective. Unless you’re actually trying to argue that everyone should see things the way you do, I don’t see what the point of that list is. You also give a list of actions you say are what people who are hostile to trans people do. Is it really hostility? Or maybe is it fear, perspective, or misunderstanding? When you label others as being hostile because they are different from you and have different experiences and different perspectives, how is that productive? How does that lead to better understanding on either side?
DB,
“Mainly, your whole post comes across as, ‘I don’t have a problem with trans people so none of the rest of you should either.'”
Pray tell, what problem should we be having with trans people?
“but everything you’ve listed is simply your experience and your perspective”
A passive aggressive way of saying, “you’re wrong and short-sighted.” OK, then. How should we see trans people?
“When you label others as being hostile because they are different from you and have different experiences and different perspectives, how is that productive? How does that lead to better understanding on either side?”
What is this “other side” you speak of? The transphobic side?
There are maybe two valid reasons to take issue with transgenders: 1) Trans-females competing in female sports and 2) Trans-males and -females demanding that cis-gendered straight people widely accept them as possible romantic partners (sorry, but as a straight male I would never in a million years consider a trans-female no matter how seemingly attractive to be a possible romantic interest, and I don’t think it is unreasonable or transphobic for me to say that). Other than that, I fail to understand what the big deal is with transgenders. Some people simply feel like the opposite gender. I simply don’t see any reason why we cannot pretty much mostly accept someone who was born a male to be a female or vice-versa.
I’m very pleased that there are people are discussing this issue in Facebook groups and online, and that a substantial number are bring respectful and sensitive. I’m not surprised at all by the insensitive remarks. I’ll confess that I was well into adulthood before I realized I had throughout my life been rude to transgender people.
I would never recommend that a trans person attend LDS church. This is partly because I no longer see much value in going to church anyway, so I’m not representative of the believing member. I don’t know how my ward would respond, but from my conversations with individuals I would expect silence towards short term visitors, and mostly passive hostility towards longer term participants. Certainly someone would “talk” to the Bishop, to what end I’m not sure.
I have Facebook friends with trans children. They have seemed to do okay, but don’t share much detail, which is probably good. I have been pleased to see parents advocate on behalf of their trans children.
My member friends are mostly concerned with bathrooms and locker rooms, especially at school. They seem to think high school boys in somewhere like California will just decide to be a girl for a day in order to gain access to the girls locker room. This in spite of the huge social stigma of being trans. I see this as highly unlikely… Except at the University I went to there were frequent reports to the police of a lurker in the women’s locker room at the fitness center. The individual (s), if they existed, always escaped. This raises the question whether it was a peeper or someone, perhaps a trans person, who simply wanted privacy.
The simple solution is to build public locker rooms and bathrooms with more privacy control.
DB: Valid questions. I don’t really know how to get past it other than discussing it. There are differences between fear and hostility, but both are on the same continuum. When someone crosses into calling all trans people “perverts” and stating that they will “NEVER” accept them, to me, that’s past the point of fear and into the realm of hostility. I think Alice’s point about her own experience with sharing a bathroom with a trans person is why I took the approach I did. If I hadn’t experienced it, I wouldn’t be as able to report that it was no big deal–it would be conjecture. And I stand by my statement that the women’s restroom in the LDS church is a madhouse with children of both sexes running in and out and a trash can full of diapers. That’s been my universal experience. The women’s restroom at church is not comfortable and enjoyable. It’s pretty busy in there, mostly due to sexist assumptions about parenting roles. Let’s not oversell how great it is. I think calling it a “safe space” is 1) silly because of what these rooms are like, and 2) implying that it’s only safe because those “dangerous” trans people are barred–which is an invalid assumption about trans people. It’s smearing them for being predators or having nefarious purposes when they are more likely in danger from others. I don’t believe we can get through to a woman like the one I described. I wish we could. If she had a trans grandchild, maybe that would change her mind. Talking to people she doesn’t know on line is unlikely to. She boasted she would never agree to allow a mtf trans person in RS, even if the bishop instructed her to do so. IMO, that’s not a person who’s going to have a rational discussion or listen to the trans person or their family. But I think there are many people who do seek to understand out there, even if they feel fearful of change or uncomfortable.
In my old ward there was a transgendered woman who regularly attended our Relief Society. I remember one Sunday she bore her testimony in RS about how loved and accepted she felt there. She had tears in her eyes and afterwards several of the sisters gave her warm hugs. It was evident that she had many friends. I did not know her personally. But I have to admit I was kind of proud of our ward that day.
All of this was over a decade ago. i.e. before Prop 8 and many of the recent controversies. I have since moved and I am no longer in that ward. When I have occasionally visited I haven’t seen her. This doesn’t necessarily mean anything as the ward has a high turnover with a lot of people moving in and out. Over the years though I have frequently thought of her, especially when some of the more horrible pronouncements have been made over the pulpit in General Conference. I wonder if she is still active in the church. If so is she still in a ward where she feels loved?
I have no doubt that the local ward members would still welcome her. It’s not the local members I’m worried about. It’s the pronouncements coming from the top.
I didn’t answer my own discussion questions, but here goes:
1) Is your ward hostile to trans people or are they more compassionate and willing to listen? I would not expect them to be great as we have a lot of older folks who haven’t been around a lot of trans people. I imagine strong, visible allies would be a key to getting people to simmer down. After all, if someone is just sitting in a church meeting, what’s the big deal?
2) Will trans people find a place in our Church? If so, how long? I agree with the comment that Oaks’ recent doubling down on “biological sex at birth” is a hurdle, but it’s also enigmatic in 1% of births. If the Church can’t acknowledge that intersex is a thing, they could at least allow for trans people to be “delusional” and treat them kindly. (Not that this is a great end solution, but it’s at least inclined to create compassion).
3) Would ward members be more welcoming of one of the youth who was trans than they would for a married adult? I think most Church members would be more accepting of youth than adults for two reasons: 1) the youth are more likely to have family support surrounding them and advocating for them, and 2) married adults in particular might be seen as “betraying” their familial duties.
4) Would the Church be more welcoming to a male-to-female trans person or to a female-to-male trans person? Why do you think so? I would go out on a limb here because of what the handbook used to say about trans people in the seventies (when there was only acknowledgement that someone was trans who was post-operative). There appeared at that time to be a lot of utterly ridiculous hand-wringing that feminists would change their sex simply to get access to the priesthood, which honestly sounds less plausible than so-called penis envy. I mean, I’m a committed feminist, but I’m not getting a sex change operation to get access to your precious priesthood.
I can’t answer the question about what my ward feels about trans people, because I don’t have a ward. I was taught growing up in the church that if I am in an environment in which I feel the Holy Spirit leave, I should get out of that environment.. So I did.
John W, all I can say is you should go back and read my comment again. Actually read it without inserting any bias or assumptions on your part. Do that and hopefully you’ll realize that none of of the incorrect judgments you imputed to my words are actually there. The whole point of my comment was about seeking to understand rather than casting judgment because you don’t understand which appears to be exactly what you did with my comment. But as you said yourself, “I fail to understand . . .” and “I simply don’t see . . . .”
Angela C, I agree there is no way to get past it other than discussing it, BUT discussing with the intent to truly understand rather than the intent to persuade. One sentence you wrote is very telling, “IMO, that’s not a person who’s going to have a rational discussion or listen to the trans person or their family.” That’s very true. If the approach to a discussion is that one side is expected to listen to and understand the other side, you’ll never get anywhere just as you stated. However, that person probably will have a rational discussion if you listen to them and seek to understand their perspective first. A discussion shouldn’t be about trying to convince some else that you’re right or that they should listen to you; it should be about you listening to them. Once someone feels understood, they are much more willing to listen and seek understanding themselves.
DB, go back and read my response to your comment. I asked you a number of questions to clarify your points. Implicit in your plea to understand this so-called “other side” is a call to defend transphobic people (or at least, transphobically-inclined people, who are different from overt transphobes who actively seek to harass and harm transgenders). Also implicit in your comment is this idea that we can’t point out actions and words that are hurtful to trans people (outside obvious insults and acts of physical aggression) because we might come off as calling people who are insensitive and unaccepting of transgenders, well, “transphobes” and that calling them that would be just too insensitive, cause them to freeze up, and cause them never to consider the feelings of transgenders. Isn’t this the real snowflakism here? We have to do everything in our power not to not offend transgenders (who are real victims of violence and discrimination on a regular basis), but not to offend those who are unaccepting of transgenders. As if the unaccepting are more delicate fragile little snowflakes that cry victim over the smallest of slights (which actually is true, most transgenders are actually pretty thick-skinned people who have been through a lot). Completely backwards logic. Not unlike the attitude that calling people racist is more offensive than acts of racism themselves.
So as to your point that we need to consider the delicate sensitivities of this unidentified, yet implicitly transphobically-inclined, side, consider how the victory was achieved for gay marriage. Was it by gay rights proponents being super delicate about the homophobically-inclined side? Hardly. It was by routinely calling out hate not just in overt forms, but in subtle forms as well. The OP is doing more to address transphobia than the delicate approach you suggest. The goal should be to make it so the other side doesn’t exist, not continue to encourage and validate its existence.
John W,
Your rhetoric says that you’re unable to have a civil conversation with those who have different views on this topic. You automatically assume they’re “transphobic”, full of hate, and bad intentions. Frankly, the hate and ignorance I see is in your posts on this thread.
Angela,
Your post strikes a similar tone in that it creates strawmen for those who have different views (they’re full of hate, they’re ignorant etc). Are you able describe those who have differing views on this topic as compassionate, well-informed and caring (although mistaken)?
How about having a real discussion on the key questions impacting trans people, such as is it ok to give trans minors off-label prescription drugs to halt their development of puberty (and making them sterile)? How about removing and reconstructing their genitalia? I’m curious, is it possible to have different opinions than you on these two questions and not be considered ignorant and hateful?
We had a transgender woman attend our Relief Society several times within the past six months. Everyone was very respectful as afar as I could tell. By the way, I am in a Utah County ward.
Junia, your question about how minors who come out as trans are treated are definitely valid for those creating legislation and those in the therapy field. Therapists agree as do nearly all people that making permanent changes to minors is not ok. Minors are not being recommended for procedures that render them sterile or that permanently alter their genitals. The usual treatment is to use hormones to block puberty because hormones are easy to change and don’t entail lasting consequences.
For those who think we should give air time to people calling trans people perverts and who consider themselves the true victims for being confronted with the existence of a trans person, I get what you are saying, but I disagree. Someone recently made ther observation that when you allow both white supremacists and blacks to be free to share their views and participate in an organization, you get an organization full of vocal white supremacists and no blacks.
Is it true that hormones cause no lasting damage? It seems that women going through menopause and using Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) are at increased risk of breast cancer. Also, male athletes who use HGH and steroids often get lower sperm counts. I’m not sure if it is permanent, but during reproductive years could cause serious problems.
Junia, you and DB are hung up on civility to those with “differing views” but you never mention what these differing views are. You’re just beating around the bush coyly. Tell me what these differing views are that you’re worried about me (and Angela) offending and not accommodating.
The point about minors and sex changes is perfectly valid. But I suspect that you bring this up as a Trojan horse for a larger issue that you want to get at which is the very validity of transgenderism itself. If you prefaced your point as something like, “I fully support transgenders and see nothing wrong with them but am concerned about sex changes for minors” it would come off completely different. Instead you prefaced this concern by attacking my comments and the OP, which pointed out the suffering of the transgenders. So yeah, total Trojan horse.
Without validating the plight of trans LDS folks, your pleas for civility come off as rather silly. You’re giving voice to this fake victimhood complex pushed by anti-trans people, as if the real victims of incivility are those speaking out against transgenders while completely ignoring the actual real victimhood of the transgenders themselves. Cry me a river and call me when you’re ready to validate where the real suffering is. Nothing but little boys crying wolf about incivility.
RS pres in a YSA Ward. We had a MTF individual transition while participating in our ward: switched to attending RS from EQ, name change, pronoun change, had meals delivered and a recovery blessing after top surgery, etc. We also helped her connect with other non-binary members and hosted a fireside with a Q&A panel of other LGBT members.
I’ll admit to feeling unsure what to do when she first approached me. She wanted to be in church through her transition, but also basically wanted assurance from me on behalf of all the women in the ward whether it would turn out ok to discreetly switch to RS. I knew that, like everyone, she should have a place at church for at long as she wants it. (In the framing of mainstream LDS cosmology: If we assume that spirits are all binary male or female, whereas intersex bodies are born all the time, it’s obvious that spirits can be born into a body that doesn’t match, and that this is very common, as mentioned in earlier comments. How often does that happen, is it restricted to diagnosed intersex people, and how could we know? As far as I can see, we simply can’t. In the face of such uncertainty, the best source of information available is an individual’s self-diagnosis. It’s funny that in this sense, the existence of trans people is one of the best arguments that spirits have an intrinsic, innately-known, binary gender. But suppose, for the sake of argument, the worst-case scenario happened: an individual is mistaken about their spiritual gender. It’s less harmful for them to live their life presenting as the ‘wrong’ gender inside the church than to live without access to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The opposite error–wrongfully excluding someone who was right about their own identity–is extremely serious.) But I of course couldn’t *really* know how the rest of the ward would respond and did not want to set her up to have her life suddenly become a fraught, public battleground. I sussed out how the bishop would respond by talking to him first about an anonymous trans individual. Then she and I talked more about how far along in transitioning it’d be best/most comfortable for her to get before switching to RS, how to communicate the change, etc. I’m happy to assure you all from first hand experience that accepting our trans members can absolutely turn out just fine.
John W, I think the bush around which some seem to be beating is the opinion (which I believe is widely held among active LDS members) that transgenderism is fundamentally a mental illness. If the active member believes that as a fundamental truth, then no matter how compassionate and kind the member is to the fellow trans member, the actions are intended as an accommodation (less charitably it could be described as “playing along”) to someone who is sick, not an acceptance of a fellow brother or sister. In other words, they truly do see a trans woman as a mentally ill man in a dress in need of help and understanding.
Admittedly, I’ve read little from trans writers (at least knowingly), but one of the saddest things I do recall from that limited experience is one writer discussing was how heartbreaking it is to find out that even staunch allies often don’t believe in their gut that the trans person is truly a member of the target gender. If I recall correctly that was in connection with an attempt to ask someone on date, but I suspect if an active member trans person were regularly attending and serving in an accommodating ward and then asked for a calling only be turned down, the pain would probably resonate along that same frequency (so to speak).
Thus, to answer one of your questions, I don’t think the Church as currently constituted doctrinally, functionally, or socially, truly has a place for a trans person seeking to live in their target gender. Individual wards and branches will vary greatly in their willingness to accommodate, but even if they do, I don’t think it will often be the kind of acceptance the trans person would hope for.
*”Thus to answer one of the main post’s questions…”
Sorry, I should have clarified the first paragraph is addressed to John W, but the last is directed at the main post.
John W, instead of hurling completely false and libelous accusations against me, you really should just read my comments. Everything you’ve written about me is false, everything you’ve accused me of writing is false, everything you’ve accused me of implying is false. Absolutely nothing you wrote about me is anywhere in any comment I’ve written. I have no idea where you’ve getting any of these ideas about me or why. You didn’t ask any questions to clarify my points because your questions address nothing I wrote. How could I be expected to answer your questions when you’re asking about your own fabricated accusations about me? And why should I even attempt to answer any of your questions when all you’ve done so far is make false accusations about everything I’ve written. If you demonstrate that you actually want to understand what I’m writing, and honestly everything I’ve written is pretty easy to understand, I will be happy to discuss with you but so far you’ve only demonstrated that you have no intention of understanding anything.
What’s really sad is you and everyone else giving me the thumbs down. All I’m saying is that in order to get someone to understand you so that you can possibly persuade them to change their perspective, you first have to be willing to truly listen to and understand them. Is it really such a radical and terrible notion to persuade others by using a method that actually works? No, I guess we should just insist that others see things the way we do and when they don’t we’ll mock them, libel them, and falsely accuse them. And when someone who agrees with us suggests that we try to persuade others using a method that actually works we’ll mock, libel, and accuse them too. Yeah, that’s the way to do it! That’ll get everyone to agree with us, right?
Any chance my main reply will make it out if moderation?
Not a Cougar.
We don’t have anyone whose paid employment is to review the spam filter for stuck comments so sometimes it will take us a while. Sorry about the delays. I’m only commenting on that because questions about posts show up regularly. So to the extent someone has a post in the filters, it is rarely “in moderation” and almost always wrongly identified as spam.
Otherwise, back in the 70s the LDS Church approved ordination, etc for a Brazilian FTM when the matter was reviewed by the First Presidency.
It was the talk of the psych department.
Interesting how things have changed.
Stephen, thanks for the clarification. It’s a bit confusing because after I submitted, it showed a preview of my post with a line that the post was in moderation. Hopefully, it makes it through as it’s a bit long to want to re-type it all.
Not a Cougar, you’re probably right. But people are coy about being more direct and saying what they want to say because they fear strong backlash.
DB, you listen to too much Donald Trump. Classic snowflake reaction. Ever heard of a motte and bailey tactic? You may not be acquainted with the term, but you seem to have mastered the mechanics of this logical fallacy. A motte is a medieval fortress that is easily defended, often on a hill, that is difficult for an opponent to take hold of. The bailey is the low-lying fields surrounding the motte that are more difficult to defend. The arguments that are clearly implicit in your comments are harder to defend (transgenders are mentally ill and overall inferiors not worthy of our validation, and their plight is not worthy of too much attention since they are mentally ill people) bailey arguments. Yet when people attack the clear implications of your comments, you retreat to the motte and say, “all I was saying is that we should try to understand people with different views” which is an easy-to-defend argument. It is a total coward’s refuge. To add to that, you are employing this victimhood narrative that conservatives have gotten so good at using these days. It is completely fake. You anti-trans folks aren’t victims of leftist oversensitivity or political correctness. This is nothing more than a smokescreen to give you an excuse not to validate the suffering and plight of transgenders.
Thank you for discussing this, I have an interest because I have never known a trans person at church that I recall, and I was raised in the LDS culture and believed some of the common opinions found among us about transgender folks.
I was blessed to become friends in real life with a number of trans people in a sports context, and that improved my outlook so much. The fear of a cis-gendered person pretending to be trans for a malevolent purpose is next to nil. The fear of true trans folks encountering malevolence is depressingly common. It’s insulting to us (trans and their friends) to bring up such a point, and I’ll push it down every time I have to engage with it.
As well, laypeople speculating on complex medical issues about which they know very little are a detour from productive discussion.
The best information and understanding you can get is from trans people themselves, and their opinions are the most informed, by far the most evolved, and they should be listened to with no pre-conceived judgement. One should learn from them about the condition first.
The question of trans athletes came up, and I have experienced that. (Remember only MTF athletes are ever challenged this way, never FTM.) Our social culture in general has some surprisingly intense, negative attitudes towards all non-binary people, and it’s particularly uninformed and widespread toward transgender folks. This doesn’t qualify someone to address the issues.
As well, correlation is not causation, and male athletic performance is not uniformly superior to female athletic performance. Individuals perform according to a variety of factors, and gender isn’t always the most meaningful.
The only way to approach an opinion about a trans MTF athlete is as an individual performer. In my experience, when the trans teammates were good it was because they worked hard and had ungendered skills, not because they were born biologically male. I saw the same variety of skills among the trans athletes that I did the cis athletes, and I never saw or heard of a real life reason that an MTF athlete was an unfair advantage over competitors.
Bottom line: Genitals don’t dictate whether or not someone is good at any given sport.
Great post and good comments.
I have to say that a lot of the comments being posted here make me very uncomfortable as a MTF trans person who dearly, dearly wants the church to accept me and people like me. We just want to be a part of the church too, and I wish people (and more specifically the Brethren) would understand that.
Also as a side note, “transgendereds” is considered pretty offensive by trans people. It’s like the difference between “colored people” and “people of color”. Very similar but one has connotations that the other does not. I’ve seen “transgendereds” a lot in these comments, so in the future, it’s “trans people” or “transgender people” or when referring to someone who is MTF “trans woman” and someone who is FTM “trans man”. Thank you.
To Mormon Heretic’s question. Puberty blockers are safe and reversible and have been used for decades on kids. They did not become controversial until they started being used on trans kids.
TruthofRuth, I apologize for my poor terms, and deeply appreciate your clarification. I should know better, no excuses. You’re very generous to help me, thank you.
Trans people.
Trans woman.
Trans man.
These are my terms in future.
And to follow up–I misread your comment in the context of a prior comment. HRT, or more appropriately GAHT does have some risks. However, the risk of not offering affirming care is suicide–so as in the case of all healthcare interventions, the risks and benefits of the treatment are explored with the patient, and their family if they choose, and informed consent obtained.
Incidentally, it seems that the increase CV and CA risks in those on feminizing hormones are more a product of the specific combinations of hormones and less on the hormone treatment itself.
Thank God for DB. I was just about to abandon reading these comments when his voice burst through the craziness like sunshine bursting through the fog.
As much as I respect hawkgrlll it is so hard to read blog posts like this that are so full of the very bigotry and bias that she claims to see in those who have a different world view than her.
Please keep fighting the lonely fight of reason and fairness here, DB. It is much appreciated.
Just some observations –
I meet monthly with a group of fathers of LGBT+ children. We support each other, share our experiences, and offer advice (when solicited) to “new” dads or just on issues that emerge as our kiddos encounter them. My son is gay.
The number of dads with trans kids are represented far more than one would expect due to average demographic distribution. And that’s because it’s hard: hard for the families and really hard for the children. Reasons: Gays and Lesbians have been on the social radar far longer and are starting to claim real acceptance; Trans kids have challenging and complicated medical/biological issues to face; and, sexual attraction adds another factor to consider. A trans boy may be attracted to males or may be attracted to females or trans males or trans females. I can be hard for anyone – even loved ones – to wrap their heads around all of this.
I’ve observed from this group and the Dragon Dads, that the percentage of trans kids experiencing problems in their wards is far greater than that of gay and lesbian children (not validated statistically, but by obvious observation).
A humble person would approach this topic thoughtfully and treat trans people lovingly. The declarations from the Q15 (either the vocal few or the silent remainder) along with the it-might-as-well-be-canon Proclaimtion leave members wondering how they can be thoughtful and loving while being faithful followers.
While I understand that we need to meet people where they are and be long-suffering and full of gentle persuasion, we also can’t sit by silently and allow them to hurt LGBTQ+ people – especially the children and youth – without challenge.
In the last several years, I’ve heard in Sunday school or priesthood that the earth is 6,000 years old and “I’ll believe in evolution when they start teaching it at BYU” (can anyone say 1974). That kind of ignorance isn’t likely to contribute to anyone’s suicidal ideation. General Conference talks, BYU Devotionals, and CES addresses about the “absolute and eternal truths” surrounding gender identity do. At the ward level – go ahead and say that the responses Hawkgirl lists shouldn’t be hurtfully labeled as transphobic because people have a right to be heard in the name of fostering discussion.
Sometimes people just need to be told to shut the hell up – you are deeply hurting people. I can’t think of a morally acceptable position for perpetrating or allowing that kind of hurt.
Been there thank you and I agree 100%.
John W, are you serious? I mean really, are you serious? Go back and read over everything I’ve written because I’M ON YOUR SIDE for crying out loud. Do you seriously not get that? Go back and read my comments again and until you get it, stop writing your ridiculous and libelous comments about me. Everything you’ve written about me and about my comments is completely FALSE and demonstrates an absolute lack of understanding of anything I’ve written! I try to be as respectful and understanding of others when commenting online like this, even when others aren’t, and I try to not call others stupid or idiot or dumb-ass but by golly some people make that really hard. Your comments are nonsense and idiotic.
I probably shouldn’t even write this but for your sake, because you clearly understand nothing I write, I will explain things for you. My first comment was first and foremost a critique of hawkgrrrl’s argument. Her argument was weak and unconvincing for several reasons, she used several illogical fallacies, it’s blatantly biased, she tried to boost her own argument by mocking others, she showed no concern or understanding of the opposing side of her argument, but mainly her argument rested almost entirely on the notion that she couldn’t understand why anyone else would have a different experience or perspective than her own. Do you think that’s a strong argument? If you care to discuss the merits of hawkgrrl’s argument, then I will happily discuss those with you because that’s what I was commenting about. Secondly, her statements were unnecessarily mocking and demeaning of others. What was the point of that? What purpose did that serve and could that possibly convince anyone to reconsider their own views? Mocking someone to boost your own argument is just unnecessary meanness and only demonstrates the weakness of your own argument. If you think otherwise, if you think mocking others is a good way to demonstrate reasoning and adds credence to your own argument, then by all means give us a logical counterargument to my comments.
My second comment focused on productive communication and discussion (something I feel you need a lot of help with). My argument was that if you want to productively and effectively reason with someone in order for them to understand and accept your views, you have to approach that discussion by first listening to and genuinely trying to understand their perspective. No one will ever accept your views if they don’t first feel that you understand theirs. Now maybe you think that is hogwash and you think it works better to just push your views on others and accuse others of things they don’t actually believe until you’re blue in the face and you’re both in a screaming match. Maybe not but that’s how you’re presenting yourself. There are a lot of barriers to trans people being more understood and accepted at church and you know what, you and others like you are some of those biggest barriers.
If you decide to change and start engaging in reasonable discussion, I will gladly do so. If you stop pretending that you know my “real” intentions even after I’ve tried to correct you several times, then I will engage with you. Otherwise I’m done with you. If you continue to reply to me in same manner as before it will only further demonstrate the idiocy of everything you’re writing about me.
DB, Please stop. It’s hopeless. JW has not singled you out for this treatment. He seems to do it regularly to anyone who does not anticipate and say what he wants said in the way he wants it said — even when they are fundamentally in agreement. I don’t think he can stop. I was slow to figure that out. My slowness to learn who not to try to have a discussion with has been noted in other contexts also. Good luck.
Wondering, I know, I know. My problem is I can’t stand being accused of blatant falsehoods especially when there is no basis for those accusations. And on top of that, people giving him the thumbs up when he does it. Clearly, he’s not the only one. It’s sad but I guess some people only know how to communicate that way.
DB, stop making me laugh. I’m writing libelous comments? I don’t think you quite understand what libel is.
Another point. You wrote that the OP made some “illogical fallacies” (you must mean logical fallacies) and that one of them was “showing no concern or understanding of the opposing side of her argument.” That’s not a logical fallacy. It is such that every time I talk about a spherical earth do I have to try to show concern and understanding for the flat earthers and their arguments? No. That is absurd. How about instead of complaining about the OP not considering these so-called opposing arguments, you just spell out what these opposing arguments are and provide evidence to back them up. But alas, a part of me thinks that you have deliberately avoided spelling these out because you’re afraid that these would be deemed transphobic.
However I think you give great advice if you only applied it to transgenders. Let’s show them concern and understanding and deeply consider the science that routinely shows the normalcy of transgenderism.
Over and over in this discussion I keep hearing that people hate or fear trans people and why do people have trouble relating to or excepting trans people?
Is it possible that people have a hard time dealing with trans people is because people have a hard time dealing with people with mental illness in general. Now before all hell breaks loose here, let me explain the position of a lot of people in and out of the church on this issue.
First, until very recently, and maybe still is, Sexual Dysphemism or transgenderism was listed as a type of mental illness. There are a number of these type of Dysphemism, anorexia is one common type, believe that you are to fat or not skinny enough, even though they can get to the point of malnutrition and death. An other example is body integrity identity disorder or BIID, the desire to amputate a limb or become paralyzed.
Do people “hate” people who are anorexia? Generally no. but they may have difficulty relating to or understand what is going on. Because they don’t know how to deal with people who are mentally ill.
Here is the short of it. Most normal people do not feed the mental illness, by encouraging the behavior, we do not say to the anorexic person, “your right you are fat and you need to loose more weight until you feel good about yourself.” We do not tell the depression person, “your right your life sucks and it will never get any better and you will always be a pathetic person. Ending your life might be the best option for you.” And normal people don’t tell people who think that cutting off their leg will fix all their problems, to just cut it off. We don’t feed the delusion. Most people feel and have been taught, even in college, that transgenderism is another form of mental illness.
People are generally compassionate with people with mental illness, but people have a limit when mental illness is treated as normal behavior.
S Jones, Your explanation is a reasonable historical explanation for the antipathy of some toward claims of transgenderism. But it may be important to note that classification as a a mental illness by the APA’s DSM is neither static, nor conclusive. Some things once so classified are no longer (and such changes seem to be partly based on developing science and partly on political forces). Your last sentence may be read as persisting in the claim that transgenderism is a mental illness. What if it isn’t? Those trans-people I know of include some who act fully in accord with societal expectations of their birth-assigned gender and some who have chosen to act in accordance with societal expectations of the gender they feel they are. None of them show in their interactions with others any behaviors that are not well within the range of normal human behaviors. (Except perhaps those celebrities who have gone public with stories of their hormonal and surgical changes. And I’m in no position to have any opinion on whether that is “normal” for someone who feels and thinks as they say they do.) My sample is extraordinarily small, but presents no reason at all to think of transgenderism as a mental illness, while I have good reason in the historical changes to the DSM as to homosexuality and some other matters to think of its classifications as far from conclusive.
So, are you merely explaining why some who were taught that transgenderism is a mental illness are unable to treat trans-people with normal human kindness and respect? Or are you saying they are right not to do so? If the latter, what exactly is it that you find conclusive on the question of it being a mental illness?
JR
I agree with you that definitions of what is mental illness can change, and that sometimes they are based on science and sometimes on political forces. And I believe the vast majority of the people would and do classify transgenderism as a form of mental illness. Whether it is or not has not be decided yet. But it is true that most people would classify it as one. This is not passing judgement, just a statement of fact, most people would consider transgenderism to be a form of mental illness. Just like most people think of anorexia a mental illness. And it is just as likely that people with anorexia do not consider themselves to be mentally ill, does not change the fact that they are classified as having a mental illness.
You then asked an important question. “What if it is not?” I think it would take some very strong data. But if there was that would be a game changer.
And now the reciprocal question. “what if it is a mental illness?”
We have strong evidence to suggest that anorexia is a mental illness and if encouraged can lead to harmful outcomes. With the best knowledge we have, we have decided as a people that this type of behavior is in need of help, not to reinforce the behavior but to help the person work thru there issues.
Now lastly to your final point. I am simply trying to explain why people, the average person lets say, thinks of transgenderism as a mental illness or as abnormal behavior. Your average person do try to treat transgender people with kindness and sympathy. They don’t hate them. And let me be clear I do not hate them, I have worked with transgender people and I have worked with and are friends with a number of people who are now or have had mental illnesses in the past. And I come with some first hand knowledge, not perfect knowledge but some first hand knowledge. And I will state that no one should treat any person badly because of there illnesses.
To the best of human knowledge, transgenderism has all the signs of mental illness, and we should be careful in encouraging actions that may cause long term damage, both mental and physical, without solid science behind it.
S Jones, according to the APA, AMA, and the WHO, being transgender is not a mental disorder. The comparison with anorexics doesn’t work. The prescribed treatment are measures to help the anorexic patient is not to help them accept that they are biologically predisposed to anorexia, but to help them feel comfortable with eating and the shape of their bodies. The prescribed treatment for transgenders is not to help them reject being a transgender or accept the sex that they were born into, but it is in fact accepting that they are transgenders and should live as transgenders.
Scott Jones
I see the point you are trying to make, but you are framing it with broad generalizations that are not backed up by data.
To the contrary, your statement that “To the best of human knowledge, transgenderism has all the signs of mental illness, and we should be careful in encouraging actions that may cause long term damage, both mental and physical, without solid science behind it.” is so overreaching and ungrounded in current science as to be fantastical.
Perhaps in your opinion, or to the best of your knowledge – but let’s acknowledge that there are some humans that may have better and more current knowledge.
The only people that are hysterical about trans people are the progressives. For some reason they can’t accept the fact that it is impossible for a person to change your sex.
Diagnosis of something as a mental health issue has not, historically, been politically or otherwise neutral. There have been abuses. People who disagree with “the norm” have been locked away. From outspoken women in the Victorian era to political prisoners deemed in need of re-education. I think we need to tread very carefully.
I have not had the experience of feeling as though I am in the wrong body. I don’t know what it would be like to feel that. But a religion that believes in personal revelation should surely take seriously those members who do feel this way, and who have sought personal revelation on the matter.
What I have experienced is being forced to wonder, by the definitions given me in church curricula of what a woman is, and what it means to be a woman, whether I was indeed a woman, biology notwithstanding, because those prescribed definitions were far too narrow to include me.
We do harm when we try to push people into boxes, to conform, because having people be like us makes us more comfortable. We need an environment that will allow all of us to flourish as our very best selves.
John W
Yes the WHO came out and is now planning on removing transgenderism from list of mental illness and they made the announcement all of 6 months ago. And one of the main reason for the change is because it is hoped it will help people be more excepted around the world. More of a social or political reason than a science.
So the treatment for anorexia and transgenderism is the opposite. And the opposite of almost most all treatments for mental illness. And you wonder why people would question that? Maybe since we are experimenting we should treat all anorexia like transgenderism and see if it works.
And before you scream at the computer that “transgenderism is not a mental illness now”. Many psychologist are unconvinced. And there is lots of mixed data out there.
BeenThere:
If my comment of “To the best of human knowledge, transgenderism has all the signs of mental illness, and we should be careful in encouraging actions that may cause long term damage, both mental and physical, without solid science behind it.” Is so outside of the common sense and main stream council as to be “fantastical” then we will most likely never be able to discuss anything like rational human beings.
S Jones
I did not say your statement was “outside of the common sense and main stream council”. I said it was “overreaching and not grounded in current science”.
“The best of human knowledge” is about as overreaching a statement as is possible. It assumes you are both in possession of all human knowledge and are able to judge what of that knowledge is the best. Your reference to not “having solid science behind it” means that you are either not aware of the current science or have dismissed it as not being solid.
Combining those two statements is indeed fantastical.
Current science does not consider “transgenderism” to be a mental illness. Current science both raises legitimate cautions and has dismissed unfounded fears. Science should inform our “common sense” and “mainstream counsel” – not the other way around.
S Jones = anti-science denialist. Best ignored.
Mark L, here’s a question: if changing one’s gender is impossible, then what exactly are intersex people? Those who have traits of both binary genders. Most of them are forced into a particular gender early in life, and often have surgeries to remove certain parts. So is that changing gender? Which gender did they start as? And it’s not an idle question of a tiny population, either. 1 out of 60 people in the world were born intersex, likely more than the entire world’s LDS population. If you see yourself as LDS, this seriously calls into question the assertion/theology that the gender individuals were assigned at birth/are physically considered is their eternal gender. And if that exception to the gender binary is within LDS theology, then why not trans people?
S Jones, trans people have always been in history, and some cultures even celebrated them. That kind of invalidates your assertion that transgender identification has always been seen as a mental illness.
Seems to me like a decision for the RS President.
Also, let’s take care not to conflate transgendered, intersex, and gay individuals (despite the media’s constant attempts to do so).
They all have individual needs and approaches, and of course unique individuals.
This is happening in my ward right now in Canada. A few years back this trans lady shows up to Church and moves in with a lady in the ward. Nobody says tickety-boo. The lady she moved into with gets a Temple recommend. The trans lady attended RS. I am under the impression they grew up in Utah and at some point had their name removed. I had heard, and this could be wrong, but if they wanted to go to the bathroom everyone had to be out-which they were fine with I guess as they attended for a few years. She made comments in class and again, her attending Church was a non issue. Out of the blue she stopped. I have no idea why. She was gone 6 months or more? not a year though. All of a sudden she starts attending as a man and is now called a man’s name. Still living with the same member-they are engaged now. He attends EQ and makes the occasional comment. According to them she was a reading the BOM and God apparently called her to repentance and is now a he. FWIW. FYI this doesn’t even make a blip on the radar of interesting events of the year or so in our ward
I comment here now with some trepidation.
Hoping not to offend ,and I may be redundant and well behind the discussion ,but …..
What moved me to comment ,was The tone of some of the responses to the responses ,it is so negative ,dare I say ,judgemental ,and informed ,it seems to me ,by an almost exasperated knee jerk reaction ,
that compassion ,acceptance and accommodation are required and the only possible response for a good person ,by everybody ,and in every case ,almost as a mark of true charity and Christian discipleship .
Surely this phenomena( trans identity ) ,on this scale ,is really not well understood .the opinions of endroconologists ,phsychologists and reputable paediatricians are mixed and sometimes opposing in the literature
There seem to me to be numerous assumptions at play about what is happening and how people ought to respond .
I’m sure many of you are aware of a “battle” now raging ,(and I don’t believe that is an exaggeration ,
for an example of the intersectional complexity at play here ,google julia beck ,Baltimore ,
radical feminist, lesbian advocate .,for women’s right to safe spaces,and her passionate explanation of what she sees as an erasure of women and lesbian women in particular) ,between trans activists and feminist individuals and groups ,
that a number of prominent ,politically active ,third wave feminists,especially lesbian women are having problems with an aggressive invasion of women’s spaces ,theatre groups ,political organisations and festivals by trans activists .( I mention this only to show that Latter Day Saints are not unique or uniquely awful in struggling to deal with this .
It really seems to me to ,not ,be a simple case of compassion and acceptance ,I write about the intersectional battle to suggest what a complex issue it is
That we as a faith community might have differing views,that some people will be justifiably uncomfortable is really not so terrible ,or unique
The LGBT’ community and feminist organisations ,progressive organisations,are having similar difficulties ,and it is getting pretty bloody
The story of the “ deplatforming “ and mobbing of some of these women on behalf of trans rights is disturbing .
The issue of rapid onset gender dysphoria amongst autism spectrum and phsychologicaly fragile ,and isolated young women ( a number of whom have publicly detransitioned ,online of course ,and identified subsequently as lesbians ,I think we ought to listen to them too .)is a complex and often harrowing story .
It seems to me that many of us are assuming that more is known about this complex area of human sexuality and phsychology than it is possible to know.
The suggestion that people cannot understand why some one might be concerned for the welfare of children ,frankly ,staggers me .
Clinics that support and encourage children in starting courses of puberty blockers ( with tragic implications for later sexual development and fertility and the possibility of life as healthy heterosexual or homosexual men and women )and hormone therapy,leading to full surgical transition at ages as young as 17 are proliferating ( in the uk at least ).
Could we not pause ,and take stock and try to work out what is happening ,and I reiterate ,compassion and acceptance are not always the highest virtue ,other things matter in our responses when considering the well being of an individual.
We have a fairly openly trans teenaged boy in our ward. He’s “accepted” in the sense that he hasn’t been shunned or completely rejected, but he’s still deadnamed by everyone, including his mother, and forced to attend YW and other gendered activities as a girl. I think that his mom “gets it,” but her non-member husband is a pretty rigid thinker and I suspect he’s laid down the law that his “daughter” will be treated as such and mom’s falling in line.
This young man knows that he has an ally in my now-inactive daughter and in me, but he’s also faced some seriously inappropriate reactions. Some of them occurred simply because none of your youth, not him nor anyone else, has ever been given any advice on how to deal with this kind of situation. He asked one of the YW out – and, predictably, she completely lost her $h1+. You’d think someone would have at least mentioned to them that courtesy is a universal quality and that “no, thank you” is always an appropriate answer, but no.
I’m at a loss as to what more I can do, if anything.