"ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."
Kay. That's nice and all, but there is something serious and VERY important left out. I'm going to use real-world and anatomically-correct words, so I hope you are grown up and mature enough handle it or can put on your big girl panties or big boy underwear within the next few seconds.
Approximately 1 in 1500-2000 children born is born noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia (source: Intersex Society of North America [ISNA]). There are many different disorders that tie in to intersexuality, the most common being Klinefelter Syndrome (having XXY chromosomes instead of XX or XY), Turner Syndrome (having only one X chromosome or an incomplete pair of XX), 5-alpha reductase deficiency (reductase deficiency caused by a mutation of the 5α reductase type II, causing the person to have male gonads but female primary sex chatacteristcs), aphallia/micropenis (lack of a penis or an unnaturally small one), ovo-testes ("true hermaphroditism") and gonadal dysgenesis (functionless and/or underdeveloped gonads).
So, what happens when a newborn child can not be clearly identified as being male or female? The ISNA recommends that "newborns with Intersex should be given a gender assignment as boy or girl, depending on which of those genders the child is more likely to feel as she or he grows up. Note that gender assignment does not involve surgery; it involves assigning a label as boy or girl to a child (http://www.isna.org/faq/patient-centered)."
So what does that paragraph from TFAPTW have to do with something like this? EVERYTHING.
In the "olden days" (oh, it probably still happens today, but most likely not as often) many boys who were born with a micropenis (thank you, autocorrect, for continuing to change "micropenis" to "micro pennies"), 5-alpha reductase deficiency, and other similar disorders underwent surgeries as infants to *makes-cutting-motion-across-neck* their under-formed or nearly non-existent penis, leaving them to be raised as girls, along with those with aphallia. Could these boys raised as girls technically have the priesthood, since genetically they could be male, though they were raised as a female?
So, who is to say that "gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose"? I could understand if the church was talking about it on a strictly homosexual basis, saying that men shouldnt be with men or women shouldn't be with women, or if they were talking about their specific gender roles, such as "fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families [...] Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children" kind of thing. But it isn't clear.
What if the Smith's little baby was born not clearly identifiable as a boy or girl, and they had to choose the gender that the child would be raised in? Let's say that they decided to raise the baby as little Jimmy.
Because of little Jimmy's genetic condition, he has both male and female parts, or severely underdeveloped male parts (pick a genetic condition listed at the beginning). Little Jimmy could end up developing a few female sexual characteristics too, because of this. What if Jimmy felt like he never fit in, or maybe had a more female nature about him?
What if, by the time he found out about the true nature of his sexuality, he decided he wanted to now be identified as a girl? Would this be a sin, since technically he would be changing his gender identity, like a transsexual would voluntarily want to do? Or would it be fine with the church, since technically his parents could have decided to raise him as a girl in the first place?
What would happen if little Jimmy was a deacon, and had already been given the Aaronic priesthood? True, Jimmy had been raised a boy, but he wasn't completely physically a male. So if he decided to become a girl, what would happen concerning the priesthood?
Next case scenario (now, this going to be pretty much the same as the last one, but a little different): What if the Smith's little baby was born not clearly identifiable as a boy or girl, and they had to choose the gender that the child would be raised in? Let's say that they decided to raise the baby as little Jane.
Because of little Jane's genetic condition, she has both male and female parts, or severely underdeveloped male parts (pick a genetic condition listed at the beginning). Little Jane could end up developing a few male sexual characteristics too, because of this. What if Jane felt like she never fit in, or maybe had a more masculine nature about her?
What if, by the time she found out about the true nature of her sexuality, she decided she wanted to now be identified as a boy? Would this be a sin, since technically she would be changing her gender identity, like a transsexual would voluntarily want to do? Or would it be fine with the church, since technically her parents could have decided to raise her as a boy in the first place?
What would happen if little Jane was a Beehive and had already been participating in the Young Women program? True, Jane had been raised a girl, but she wasn't completely physically a female. So if she decided to become a boy, what would happen concerning the priesthood? Would s/he be able to have the priesthood and be a Boy Scout? Would s/he be able to participate in male-dominated callings when s/he was older, such as Young Men's president or bishop? Would s/he be able to serve a full-time, two year mission?
Okay, this also ties in with the church's expectations of men and women. Women's main responsibility is to nurture their children, while men's responsibilities are to preside over their family, and provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. But then what about intersexual people? What about Jimmy and Jane when they become adults who haven't had hormone therapy or sexual surgery? They're neither completely male or female. What if Jimmy was more nurturing to children? What if Jane got married and had adopted a few kids? Jane's legal gender is female, but she isn't technically one. So would she technically still have this responsibility? What if she had a great job, and her husband stayed home and took care of the children?
This, in my opinion, shows that the church's idea of gender and the responsibilities that come with it, are flawed.
The question that really gets to the point is, are women considered more nurturing because of biology or because of how they were raised, and the social & cultural expectations? I mean, it's scientifically proven that women have maternal instincts, but does that mean that women can love their children more or take care of them better than their husbands? NO! Men can love and care for their children in the same capacity as their wives! So why, exactly, does the church try and impose the belief that women shouldn't work while their husbands take care of their kids?
Sorry, I totally just got off subject. But it makes me angry! Women can work and provide for the family just as well as men, and men have the capacity to take care of and nurture children just as well as women.
Why can't the church recognize that?
Sorry, back on track now.
Third case scenario (this is different): What if the Smith's little baby was born not clearly identifiable as a boy or girl, and they had to choose the gender that the child would be raised in? Let's say that they decided to raise the baby as little Jimmy.
Because of little Jimmy's genetic condition, he has both male and female parts, or severely underdeveloped male parts (pick a genetic condition listed at the beginning). Little Jimmy could end up developing a few female sexual characteristics too, because of this.
What if, when Jimmy found out the true nature of his sexuality, he decided that he wanted to truly feel like a boy, and decided to have a phalloplasty and hormone therapy? Actually, he would technically be having a sex reassignment surgery, since he was also born with a few female parts.
PROBLEM: People who have had or are considering having an elective sex reassignment surgery are accepted in the church and may be baptized, but may not receive the priesthood or enter the temple. (Church Handbook of Instructions: Book 1, Stake Presidents and Bishoprics [Salt Lake City: LDS Church, 2006] pp. 41, 78.)
Does anyone else see the paradox??
Okay. He was raised a boy because of his inconclusive genitals (or combination of male and female organs). So if he wants to truly feel like a boy by getting the female parts removed and a phalloplasty, is there something wrong with that? Or would it be like when a woman has a complete hysterectomy, has ALL the plumbing removed (because of cancer or a personal decision)?
A few months ago, I read the book "As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised As A Girl" by John Colapinto, a true story about David Reimer, born Bruce Reimer, a male who endured a botched circumcision as an infant and whose parents decided to have him undergo sex reassignment surgery (which includes a penectomy and orchiectomy) because of the severe damage to his penis and raise him as a girl.
This was not a good idea.
Bruce was then raised unhappily as Brenda, which was pretty much disastrous. She was a tomboy, bullied and harassed, and very, VERY unhappy. She took estrogen and other female hormones, and was highly encouraged by a doctor to have a vaginoplasy. After finally finding out the truth of her sexuality, she decided to assume a male identity, and called himself David. He eventually had a double mastectomy and two phalloplasties and got married, but the emotional trauma of it all was too much to bear, and he eventually ended up committing suicide.
This could be an example that gender IS an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. Bruce/Brenda/David did not feel comfortable as a girl, as if subconsciously he knew he was a boy. But another thing to be considered that at the beginning, he was completely, 100% physically a boy, not intersexual. Later, even though his male parts were removed, he still had male DNA, and male hormones. THAT was maybe one of the reasons why he felt so uncomfortable being a girl.
So, IS gender an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose? Maybe, maybe not.
If so, were intersexuals the way they are in the premortal life? Is it their eternal identity and purpose to stay intersexual for the rest of eternity? After the second resurrection, everyone will have perfect bodies. But if gender is an eternal identity and purpose, then what? I don't know, and I probably won't know, at least in this life. But seriously, I hope the church realizes how intersexuals can show that this belief about gender is not necessarily correct or set in stone. Biology and nature have proved that wrong.
**Just A Note** Sorry if there are any spelling errors or misplaced words... I typed this all on my iPod using the Blogger app. It took me four hours, so if I did make any mistakes, I hope you will be understanding. Autocorrect can be dumb sometimes :)
No comments:
Post a Comment