The Church’s new handbook of instructions became available to the public on Wednesday, with 9 of the 38 chapters having been completely rewritten and one section of a chapter updated. It is the updated section that has generated the most buzz so far, as it deals with church policies and procedures on moral issues, including same-sex marriage and an entirely new entry on transgender.[1] I will address these topics in two posts, with the transgender policy in this first post. In addressing these topics, along with sharing my own thoughts and observations, I hope to convey many of the concerns and sentiments of the LGBTQ members I have listened to and conversed with on these issues. Rather than just listening to me – a cis-gender, straight male – I encourage you to listen to podcasts or follow on social media (or better yet, meet in person) one of our many LGBTQ members who are sharing their life experiences.
Baptismal Conditions
The first difficult policy affecting trans people has to do with who can be baptized and confirmed a member of the church (38.2.3.3 and 38.2.3.14). Someone who has already transitioned through “elective medical [assumed to mean hormone therapy] or surgical intervention” requires approval of the First Presidency. The only other baptismal candidates who need First Presidency approval are murderers, polygamists, or parolees. What makes trans people so threatening in the minds of church leaders to include them in this category of people who need FP approval?
Here’s the interesting contrast to the above approval process. If a baptismal candidate has not yet transitioned and is only “considering elective medical or surgical intervention” for the purpose of transitioning, there is no approval process, they simply cannot be baptized. So perhaps such people, if they really want to be baptized, would be better off going through the transition process and then seeking First Presidency approval.
Some of you are probably thinking, “what trans person in their right mind would want to join our church given these restrictions?” I am always surprised at how many LGBTQ converts I have met who have gained strong testimonies of the gospel and sincerely desire to become members of our church given all the challenges that poses. They exist, and they are part of us. If Jesus were on the Earth in our day, how would he treat trans people who wanted to follow him and become his disciples?
Medical or Moral Issue?
The new section on “Transgender Individuals” (38.6.21) starts out sounding pretty good:
Transgender individuals face complex challenges. Members and nonmembers who identify as transgender—and their family and friends—should be treated with sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love. All are welcome to attend sacrament meeting, other Sunday meetings, and social events of the Church.
The policy further states that trans people can be baptized (subject to First Presidency approval), take the sacrament, and receive priesthood blessings. However, that is where the membership privileges stop. Priesthood ordination and temple ordinances – the highest rituals and blessings of membership – will not be available to transgender members who have transitioned.
Accordingly, “Church leaders counsel against elective medical [hormonal] or surgical intervention” for the purpose of transitioning. They also counsel even against “social transitioning” – changing dress, grooming, name or pronouns to present as other than the sex assigned at birth. Any of these attempts at transitioning will be cause for membership restrictions, which appear to consist of prohibiting the priesthood and temple ordinances discussed above.
This is where the policy becomes harmful to an already vulnerable population.[2] Medical and surgical intervention are treatments only available through competent medical professionals. Therefore, transitioning is a medical issue, not a sexual morality issue. Why is the church intervening in what should be a purely medical issue and making it a moral issue? Why does the church feel it is morally acceptable for a cis woman to have breast augmentation surgery for purely cosmetic reasons but holds that it is morally unacceptable for a transgender woman to have the same surgery for critical psychological and medical reasons?
The policy allows for hormone therapy prescribed by a “licensed medical professional to ease gender dysphoria or reduce suicidal thoughts.” Members who receive such treatment can still hold callings and receive temple ordinances – as long as the treatment isn’t for transitioning. This policy seems to completely misunderstand the purpose of hormone therapy as I have heard it explained by trans people. The reason hormone therapy reduces gender dysphoria and suicidal thoughts is because by its very nature it helps a person transition by changing their secondary sex characteristics (the bodily changes that occur during puberty) to match their internally-felt gender. How will church leaders distinguish between hormone therapy used to ease gender dysphoria vs. hormone therapy used for transitioning when such therapy accomplishes both purposes? Again, why is the church inserting itself in a place that should be under the purview of “licensed medical professionals”?
Finally, the handbook has a new subsection addressing Intersex members (38.7.6), which is included in the “Medical and Health Policies” section as opposed to the “Policies on Moral Issues” section that contains the Transgender policies. Is it reasonable to hope that a future revision of these policies will move the Transgender subsection into the Medical and Health Policies section and remove restrictions and punishments, similar to Intersex?
Social Transitioning
Even though social transitioning (changing dress, grooming, name) will result in membership restrictions, the new policy allows a trans member to have their preferred name entered on their membership record and be addressed by that name in their ward. Compared to medical and surgical transitioning, social transitioning is the least extreme measure and not permanent like the other two interventions. So why must the church punish transgender members for taking this step, especially if it is a less extreme measure of easing gender dysphoria or reducing suicidal thoughts?
Social transitioning will also invite awkward policing by church leaders. For instance, a young woman (or someone assigned female at birth) who gets a short haircut, avoids makeup and jewelry, and wears pants to reduce gender dysphoria might not be judged as transitioning. But it is very difficult for a young man (or someone assigned male at birth) to wear a dress and use makeup to not be considered as socially transitioning. I know some parents who have had their trans daughters wear a kilt or Polynesian lavalava to church to avoid unwelcome attention and judgment. How is it justifiable to put these burdensome requirements on our trans members, especially the youth who may be much more vulnerable? Don’t we expect that this will basically push them out of the Church? Is that an acceptable outcome of this policy?
Gender Theology
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the new transgender policy is this statement:
Gender is an essential characteristic of Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. The intended meaning of gender in the family proclamation is biological sex at birth. [Emphasis in original]
Equating eternal spiritual gender (which first arose as a wholly new theological proposition in the Family Proclamation) with biological sex at birth raises many questions, such as: How is it that our imperfect mortal bodies determine, or accurately mirror without fail, our previously existing eternal spirit gender? Is this definition of gender really the original intended meaning understood by the drafters of the Family Proclamation in 1995 or has the Proclamation been invoked here to attach doctrinal authority to this very novel definition of gender? If modern medical science is coming to the understanding that the wholly binary classification of gender was based largely on traditional social structures and beliefs and that, biologically, gender is really more of a spectrum, where does that leave the church’s new gender theology now that it’s hitched to biology?
Concluding Thoughts
Conspicuously absent is any policy addressing whether a transgender person can attend the gendered meeting where they feel most comfortable (i.e., Relief Society, Priesthood quorum, YM/YW). This is one decision that has varied widely from ward to ward (aka bishop roulette) and will apparently continue to do so.
While all the questions raised in this post may seem critical of the policy, I have heard many trans members and parents of trans kids express that it bodes well for the long term, even as it has painful/harmful aspects in the short term. I have been very pleased to hear that the highest church leaders have met with trans members and parents of trans children to better understand their situation. The church has established a committee to obtain feedback from LGBTQ members and their families, which reports back to church leadership. The fact that leadership is taking this seriously and acknowledging that transgender is a real thing, not a liberal plot or part of Satan’s plan in the last days, will help the make the church a more hospitable place – even though there is admittedly a long way to go.
_________________________________
[1] The full list of moral policies includes: abortion, abuse, artificial insemination, birth control, child pornography, incest, in vitro fertilization, same-sex marriages, sex education, sexual abuse, single expectant parents, sperm donation, suicide, surgical sterilization, surrogate motherhood, and the new entry on transgender individuals.
[2] Affirmation’s senior vice president, Laurie Lee Hall, who is transgender and a former stake president and church temple architect, stated: “Whenever transgender persons are placed in situations in which they are mis-gendered by others or forced to continue to act in opposition to their identity, such as limiting social transitioning, significant mental, emotional, and physical harm can be caused.”
President Oaks once said that “we don’t know” why some people are gay or trans. That was one of the most honest statements he ever made on this topic. And I wish it would guide his, and the Church’s, policies in these areas. Maybe this is asking too much given all the hypothetical complications that arise without set policy. But I find all of this (see the OP) so aggravating and frustrating because frankly the Brethren (and the rest of us) don’t know why some of our fellow humans are gay, trans, etc. Since we don’t know the “why”, maybe we should not be so specific about setting the “what” in terms of Church policy…policy that is very likely to change over time anyway.
We should let the Church’s history on race guide our decision making. As hard as they tried, prophets and apostles from the past had no idea what they were talking about when they discussed blacks or Native Americans (or Polynesians for that matter). Yet we made policies and even set doctrine based on faulty assumptions, and I think we are doing it again.
I am not advocating anarchy within the Church. There have to be standards. But can we quit trying to set policies on people who we clearly don’t understand in the context of the Lord’s will? Treat everyone equally with love and let the chips fall.
“gender” – Handbook definition out of line with current sociological definition, but not in the least “novel”:
OED:
…
3. a. gen. Males or females viewed as a group; = sex n.1 1. Also: the property or fact of belonging to one of these groups.Originally extended from the grammatical use at sense 1 (sometimes humorously), as also in Anglo-Norman and Old French. In the 20th cent., as sex came increasingly to mean sexual intercourse (see sex n.1 4b), gender began to replace it (in early use euphemistically) as the usual word for the biological grouping of males and females. It is now often merged with or coloured by sense 3b. …
The Handbook definition was previously expressed by DHO. He was one of the signers of the proclamation on the family. Presumably he knows at least what he meant.
I was sorry to see parts of that troublesome proclamation incorporated into the Handbook. I agree with most of what Bryce has written above.
Good point, Wondering.
Let’s get it out in the open. Church leaders use the word gender on purpose, knowing what it means, because they don’t want to use the word “sex”.
As a gay member, I have become so calloused by a lifetime of being battered and bruised by this church, that I no longer bleed from the beatings. I’ve come to accept the mistreatment as something that I must endure during this part of my journey but not forever. As for my trans brothers and sisters …I can only say that my heart breaks for them.
Yes, Rockwell, and in Webster’s 1828, we have a definition and analysis that asserts derivation the opposite direction from the OED:
GEN’DER, noun [Latin genus, from geno, gigno; Gr.to beget, or to be born; Eng. kind. Gr. a woman, a wife; Sans. gena, a wife, and genaga, a father. We have begin from the same root. See Begin and Can.]
1. Properly, kind; sort.
2. A sex, male or female. Hence,
3. In grammar…
So, at least for Noah Webster, a common definition was understood as biological a good bit before the 20th century.
The handbook change is nothing more than a reaffirmation of the church’s homophobia and transphobia with some slightly different verbiage. I don’t see a big change here.
So far as I can see Jesus made very clear what our responsibility and code of conduct is with regard to transgender individuals. I don’t think the Brethren have improved on it in all their zigging and zagging over the years.
39 And the second [great commandment] is like unto it, Thou shalt a love thy neighbour as thyself.
Let me inject some common sense in the discussion:
“Priesthood ordination and temple ordinances – the highest rituals and blessings of membership” are gendered (Men cannot wear veils instead of caps; women cannot baptize, etc.)
All of the restrictions are logical if seen through the goal of ensuring only male spirits receive male ordinances, and vice versa. So, trans individuals can receive all the non-gendered ordinances, but none of the gendered ones. Similarly, if an individual who previously received a gendered ordinance (priesthood and temple) transitions, then the church acts to restrict those privileges. This eliminates the possibility of a trans-woman in a dress standing in the circle to ordain another. (This is also why–probably– the church moves to restrict priesthood privileges for men who are “social transitioning” and dress like women.)
This is not about leader’s transphobia or feeling threatened. It’s about maintaining order and logic.
This IS a moral issue (rather than medical) because the church feels to restrict it’s male-specific ordinances to men, and female-specific ordinances to women.
The blog post’s statement that “the wholly binary classification of gender was based largely on traditional social structures and beliefs” is absolutely, verifiably false. Binary classification of gender is a basic biological fact, rooted in the DNA of every cell. Females have XX chromosomes. Males are XY. This applies to at least 99.99% of the population. The remaining 0.01% is addressed in the new section on intersex births.
The actual rate of intersex births is higher than 0.01%. I don’t know if you’re using small numbers for rhetorical effect, or if you honestly believe those are real statistics, but it is darkly humorous to see an appeal to common sense end in an inaccurate statistic.
If we were to accept your definition of gender based on genotype alone, we could expect about 1.7% of births to be intersex. Of these only 0.07-0.05% would present as phenotypically ambiguous at birth, so the majority of intersex individuals would be assigned a gender without even considering that there is a conflict between genotype and phenotype.
A quick google search says that 1.7% of people are born not XX or XY (not sure that’s the best definition of intersex). That’s about the same percentage of people with red hair (I have red hair!) and is not a small number of people. That doesn’t qualify for what Boyd K Packer called a prank of nature.
I think Jesus would tell us to find a way to accept intersex people. Its true that the temple ceremony is highly structured on traditional male and female. Perhaps instead of saying intersex folks can’t go to the temple maybe we should rethink the ceremony. We have very smart Q15, surely there’s a way.
It’s hard to take an argument of whether it’s .01% or 1.7% when everyone has made themselves entirely too comfortable discriminating against a full 50% of the membership when it comes to gender-based ordinance.
Daniel, Toad– Your numbers are likely correct. Whatever the exact percentage of ambiguously sexed people is,–1 in 200o if I did the math right on your .05%, the exception proves the rule that sex at birth is a fact of biology rather than an artificial social construct.
Other Clark
You say: “All of the restrictions are logical if seen through the goal of ensuring only male spirits receive male ordinances, and vice versa”?
How do you know that biological sex is a proper indicator of spiritual gender? Why shouldn’t internally-felt gender be given any weight for an identification of so-called “spiritual gender” that is totally beyond the realm of science and biology. You are mixing the two, and it is complete nonsense. We have no idea what spiritual gender is – it is pure speculation – and biology and science have nothing to say about it.
You say: “This IS a moral issue (rather than medical) because the church feels to restrict it’s male-specific ordinances to men…”
Your logic is off. I have said nothing against the church for restricting ordinances based on gender – that is obviously something it holds to be a moral issue and has nothing to do with medicine. It’s the identification of gender that is the medical issue, not a moral issue.
You say: “Binary classification of gender is a basic biological fact, rooted in the DNA of every cell. Females have XX chromosomes. Males are XY.” This is elementary school biology but ignores all the recent scientific evidence that is recognizing that the traditional biological sex classification into two distinct categories is much more complex than originally thought, and is indeed more of a spectrum. There is lots of good research on this topic in general science magazines and websites, such as Natural Geographic, American Psychology Association, New Scientist, and many others.
Bryce– I appreciate your willingness to create a dialogue.
Q: “How do you know that biological sex is a proper indicator of spiritual gender?”
A: Just like we know anything involving spirituality; faith, prayer, guidance from prophets,
Q: Why shouldn’t internally-felt gender be given any weight for an identification of so-called “spiritual gender”?
A: Because individuals have issues disconnected from reality all the time. If I’m 35, but “identify” as a 70-year-old, do I get the senior discount at Denny’s? What if I identify as a goat? Should I be allowed to marry one?
(I don’t intend to make light of the serious issues people face, transgenderism being one of the most difficult to cope with and reconcile to the Gospel. That said, at some point there’s a line that crosses into mental illness. You and I probably disagree on where that line is. I would expect that you would agree that there is a line.)
Also, we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether sex is binary. Reproduction in humans–as well as virtually all other vertebrates–relies on the standard binary male/female model. Changing the model for 0.01% or even the higher figure of 1.7% doesn’t change basic “elementary school biology” as you call it. (I’m not trying to be confrontational; just explaining the rationale behind my logic.)
What I’m wondering is if moving to change your visible gender is a sin, are doctors who use surgery to force a gender identity on intersex newborns (and when intersex people are more numerous than active Latter-Day Saints), are the doctors sinners?
Let’s not conflate trans and intersex. It’s a disservice to both.
When women are ordained, I expect we’ll see these restrictions dissolve as that’s clearly what’s driving these issues.
JPV—You are right. Top priority for church leaders: preventing the horrendous scenario of women with priesthood power (meaning administrative power—recent rhetoric shows that they don’t mind saying women have some sort of power, but they must never be allowed to actually be in charge of anything).
It seems like policy towards transgender people is created in a vacuum of knowledge. There are all these traditions and ordinances which are presumed to be inspired and so a policy is made to try to keep the traditions and ordinances the same.
So we have the priesthood given to men only, and when the issue of transgender people comes up, the church invents a policy that protects the past teachings, to try to maintain an image that “we’ve been right all along; nothing has changed.”
An alternative approach would be to presume past leaders were not perfect, that they could have created a flawed policy and/or doctrine. If we did that, then the new policy could created with the best current science in mind. We wouldn’t have to rig the policy on order to preserve the past interpretation of scripture. We could create a policy that actually shows love to transgender people, that presumes that they are who they say they are.
In the Bible, Job’s so called friends try to convince him that he did something wrong, that somehow his suffering is his fault. When the church tells transgender people to not change their name, not dress a certain way, I feel like the church is acting in a similar way to Job’s friends.
My guess is the transgender policy is the loser in the tug of war between the most conservative leaders and the more moderate leaders.
Why can’t we err on the side of love and let God sort it out in the hereafter?
I appreciate the other Clark’s views on the subject. I am in agreement with him. Having said that, I obviously have concern and compassion for my brothers and sisters in the LGBTQ community, otherwise I would not even be posting here. I guess some of us will just have to agree to disagree on certain topics.
I’ve been reading stories of trans men and women talking about their first Sunday at church with the new policies/rules/guidelines. It’s mostly fear and great anxiety. A trans woman who had not transitioned surgically, but had hormone therapy, wears dresses, and has a female name and pronouns described nausea from not knowing where to go for the second hour and what would change with her memberships status. She asked her Bishop who said that in light of the changes, it might be best to not go to RS until he had a chance to talk with the Stake President. She spent the second hour in the foyer. Members were mostly very kind. But, she felt a sword hanging over her head.
We like to tell the story of Jesus leaving the ninety and nine for the one. Yet in some comments here I see an impulse to dismiss the one or two percent as “the exception that proves the rule”. If we can “otherize” 1%, then we can otherize 5%, then the rest of the 10%+ in the LGBTQ+ community. In some instances, these policy changes have been justified by claiming the moral high ground that we need to ensure that we don’t have any women getting those male priesthood goodies. Thank you to the commenters who have vigorously defended the “others” and made them “us”.
I haven’t searched for a citation, but there was an old scientific observation that ORDER is the first law of heaven – speaking of the natural laws that govern the cosmos. Sometime in the early part of the last century, a general authority quoted that saying in general conference and said that he thought it should be that OBEDIENCE is the first law of heaven – switching from the physical heavens to the celestial realms. How many times have you heard that? How many times was it spoken by those who demand to be obeyed? By those who view their power, authority, and influence as absolute?
Their privilege is preserved by claiming their prejudices and fears come from God. And they use fear-mongering t0 get us t0 comply and to think that there must be something wrong with ourselves if we don’t see it the same. Maybe if we try asking God “What’s right?” instead of “Please confirm that they are right”, our minds and hearts will be flooded with truth and light.
“If we can “otherize” 1%, then we can otherize 5%,” Indeed you can. Here, I am otherized and so is The Other Clark. I contemplate joining the discussion, but it isn’t one.
The existence of pre-mortal gender, and resurrected gender, is pretty well established. If you cut off your hand, in the resurrection it will be restored. If you cut off your penis, in the resurrection it will be restored.
Michael 2 – If you were born with a sixth finger and your parents had it surgically removed, will it be restored in the resurrection? If you are a woman who had abnormally large breasts that caused physiological problems, and had breast reduction surgery, will the excised excess breast tissue be restored in the resurrection? If you were born intersex with both testes and ovaries, and you had the ovaries surgically removed, will the ovaries be restored in the resurrection? Will every male who has been circumcised have their foreskins restored in the resurrection?
Michael 2 – As long as you’re revealing the truth of resurrection details, please confirm that I won’t have to have all my fingernail and toenail clippings back. But I would like to have narrower hips, broader shoulders, and much thicker and more even beard and mustache. Can you arrange that? Will I need my appendix back? Looking forward to your sharing your comforting knowledge.