photo 2013-NewBranding_06_zps15bb4f95.gif

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Gender Incongruence and the LDS Church: Frontier of Understanding (Part 2)



by Russ Peterson:

Note: This is Part 2 of a multi-part post. Continued from Part 1 here.


Gender and Individual Identity

Consider for a moment the experience of an individual with androgen insensitivity syndrome—one of the disorders of sex development described in the previous section. These individuals that are genetically male (with X and Y chromosomes) nevertheless develop as females, along with outwardly female sexual anatomy. Most do not become aware of their condition until they are medically examined to find the cause of infertility when they are trying to conceive children.

Imagine what it might be like to grow up normally as a female, only to learn during adulthood that you are genetically male, and that your female gender presentation is due to a genetic error. In the context of the current discussion, imagine further what we might say should such an individual express feelings of gender confusion (e.g., that the externally manifested gender did not match the individual's internal experience).3

This illustration helps us separate the concept of biological sex from that of gender identity. Whereas biological sex refers primarily to sexual anatomy and physical characteristics, gender identity refers to an individual's internal experience of gender. Most often gender identity is consistent with biological sex, but sometimes it is not. For reasons not clearly understood, there are cases where the inner sense of gender identity does not match the outward manifestation of biological sex. Interestingly, most often this incongruence cannot be explained by a recognized disorder of sex development spoken of in the previous section.

What we do know is that gender formation and identity are highly influenced by culture. That is, parents typically convey to children expectations about gender in accordance with a child's biological sex; thus children learn to identify with a particular gender based on these experiences and expectations. Furthermore, gender identification happens early in a child's development—well before the age of 8, and this gender identity is most often stable over time. Typically, when an individual announces as an adult that outwardly perceived gender is opposite that of inner experience, that individual is most often acknowledging later in life a gender identity that formed earlier during childhood.

For the gender congruent majority, the separation of biological sex and gender identity is difficult both to imagine and to understand. Few outside the social sciences are able to clearly separate gender identity from biological sex. This is because: 1) gender is so innate to personal experience that most lack a frame of reference for understanding how gender can differ from biological sex; 2) gender incongruence is seldom disclosed; and 3) exposure to these topics is limited outside college courses that specifically address them.

We also know that identification with a particular gender is a developmental process; gender identity is not something an individual consciously chooses. This is true both for gender-congruent and gender-incongruent individuals. For a frame of reference, ask yourself if you can remember choosing to see yourself as male or female. Alternatively, you might ask why an individual would bring upon him or herself shame and ridicule by choosing to identify with a gender that is opposite his or her biological sex. Sometimes gender-incongruent individuals seek surgical intervention for their condition. In doing so, they are generally not trying to change gender; rather, they are seeking to make their external appearance and biology congruent with their internal sense of gender identity.

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Gender Incongruence and the LDS Church: Frontier of Understanding (Part 1)



by Russ Peterson:

Note: This is Part 1 of a multi-part post to run the rest of this week.


In The Family: A Proclamation to the World, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have taught that "gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." Although we are accustomed to thinking of this doctrine as unique to the LDS tradition, it is in fact among the first truths recorded in scripture:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them (Genesis 1:27).
The image of God, which includes male and female, is the image and pattern after which God created Adam and Eve, whereupon which He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth (Genesis 1:28). Latter-day Saints believe the family is "ordained of God." In other words, we hold the family—consisting of man, woman, and children—to be divinely organized by God for the accomplishment of His work, which is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39).

The fact that man and woman act together in the creation of life is in accordance with divine design. Latter-day Saints believe that sexual relations within the bonds of matrimony constitute a sacrament of marriage, binding two souls together according to the covenant they have made. This pattern, instituted of God for the happiness of His children, neither originated in nor concludes with the mortal sphere. According to the plan of happiness, the family is the fundamental social unit both in time and eternity.

For the vast majority of His children, the nuclear family—consisting of man, woman and children—is congruent with individual development in terms of biology, identity, and attraction. For example, most individuals that appear to be male have functional male sexual anatomy, experience an internal sense of being male, as well as feelings of attraction toward women. Conversely, most individuals that appear to be female have functional female sexual anatomy, experience an internal sense of being female, as well as feelings of attraction toward men. For the purposes of this article, I will refer to this agreement of biology, identity, and attraction as gender congruence.

Monday, December 8, 2014

Feminist Club



by Eliana:


My entire extended family on the maternal side got together for a reunion over Thanksgiving. It was fun, I chatted a lot, yada yada yada. My mom has four sisters, no brothers. They are loud women with lots of opinions. My mom is probably the most mellow which I can't believe I am even saying. I've grown up with strong, interesting women for my whole life—and all of that generation are active in the church.

My little cousins (by which I mean Grown Women Younger than Me) cornered me and asked if we could have dinner together one night. A girl table! How fun! Not having to eat with children! This is how Nichole and Abby presented their offer:

"Eliana, can we have dinner with you tonight so you can teach us about Mormon feminism?"

How can a girl say no to such a request? I let go my laughter at the idea of having anything to share or having any special knowledge on the subject and agreed to go for it.

Best. Conversation. Ever.

Thursday, December 4, 2014

A Response to Reid's Religious But Not Spiritual Post



by Anonymous:


Dear Reid,

I am, by your definition, religious but not spiritual (RBNS). I'm writing because your post on November 25th cast too wide a net in calling out those of us who "draw near unto [God] with their lips, but whose hearts are far from [him]."

Like many church members who gained their testimonies gradually over time, I lost mine bit by bit over a period of years. What began with a series of small doubts as a teenager culminated two decades later with a personal admission uttered quietly to my reflection in the mirror: "I no longer believe the church is true."

When people lose their testimonies, we often attribute it to bad information or bad choices; or we just say that they never really had a testimony in the first place. In my case, and in the case of many others, none of these describes what actually happened. I did have a real testimony, I only read literature that was historically accurate, and I maintained the high standard of personal worthiness that the church requires. I lost my testimony because, after long periods of study and reflection, I was unable to reconcile church teachings with history, science, and the state of the world.

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Of Course She Knew



by Melissa Condie:


I recently watched a video on the Tubes of Pentatonix singing "Mary, Did You Know?"

I thoroughly enjoyed the harmonious performance, but was taken aback by the lyrics of the song, which are inherently flawed (at no fault of Pentatonix).

Why are we questioning if Mary knew if Jesus was the Son of God? Why are we questioning if Mary knew her son would perform miracles and save us all?

OF COURSE SHE KNEW.

Doi. Does anyone on our planet read the Bible anymore? Remember when the angel Gabriel pronounces to Mary: "… behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

The Church's "Master Brand"



by Seattle Jon:

I recently received an email from the Publishing Services Department of the Church. My stake had been selected to participate in a research study examining the visual styles used by the church and they asked if I'd be willing to participate. As if the focus group wasn't enough of a draw, a meal and compensation for my time and travel were included. "I'll be there," I replied.

A few days later they emailed me the following short preparation exercise along with the date, time and location of the focus group.




Two participants had already arrived by the time I showed up. Three more showed up over the next ten minutes. I recognized several of them, two were from my ward. We were handed a packet of four "brands" in random order with instructions to rate our interest by selecting our first and second choices based on the basis of those we found most relevant, persuasive and motivating, and to provide rationale for our choices. We could also circle words we liked and/or cross out words we didn't.


The six of us were then moved into a large room with not only spectacular views of downtown Seattle but of ourselves as well - one side of the room consisted of a giant bank of mirrors. Thoughtfully, the table around which we sat was loaded with snacks and leftover Halloween candy. Water was provided. The woman moderating the discussion told us representatives from the Church were behind the mirrors - in my notes I wrote "creepy."

Monday, December 1, 2014

Linger Longer 37




Linger Longer is a series where we highlight religious and non-religious articles, as well as mormon-related podcasts. Click here for previous lists.

Bloggernacle (religious sites)
The Perfect Primary Program (Feminist Mormon Housewives)
BYU, Religious Freedom (or it's Lack), and Beards (By Common Consent)
"A New Affirmation on Marriage": A Sneer At the Mormon Church? (Times and Seasons)
Most Liked Conference Talks (Zelophehad's Daughters)
Mixed Messages (The Exponent)
Some Common Stages of Mofem (gifs) (Young Mormon Feminists)
A Research Time Capsule (Juvenile Instructor)
Contextualizing Crises of Faith (Faith-Promoting Rumor)
Helvetica (Peculiar People)
The Man in the Mask (Rational Faiths)

Mormon-Related Podcasts
Episode 123: Perfectionism and False Realities in the Perfect Mormon Family (FMH Podcast)
Episode 507: Free BYU - Religious Freedom and Faith Transition at Church Schools (Mormon Stories)
Episode 256: The Church's New Articles on Plural Marriage (Mormon Matters)

Off-Bloggernacle (non-religious sites)
One-Second DayWindshield RaindropsBillion-Story Building and Pyramid Energy (What If?)
Our 'Mommy' Problem (The New York Times)
Why I Hope to Die at 75 (The Atlantic)
The Twisted World of Sexual Organs (BBC)
Paul Shaffer's Life with Letterman (The Daily Beast)
What If Counterfactuals Never Existed? (New Republic)
Forget Ebola. This is the Viral Epidemic That Should Really Terrify Americans (Quartz)
It's Silly to Be Frightened of Being Dead (The Guardian)
Buy Experiences, Not Things (The Atlantic)
Can You Teach an Old Parent New Math? (And Why Would You?) (Sports on Earth)
Time's Up for Astrology (Slate)
What If You Just Hate Making Dinner? (The New York Times)
How the Internet, Dopamine and Your Brain Are Working Together to Screw You (Medium)
If You're Bad at Math, Blame Your Parents (Quartz)
Stepping Off the Golden Gate Bridge (Priceonomics)
How Shawshank Redemption Became One of the Most Beloved Films of All Time (Vanity Fair)
Catholics Are More Progressive Than the Vatican, and Almost Everyone Else (FiveThirtyEight)
Eating at Restaurants is Why You're Fat (FastCompany)
You Can Look it Up: The Wikipedia Story (The Daily Beast)
How Rebounds Work (Grantland)
What If Age is Nothing But a Mind-Set (The New York Times)

Other MMM Posts

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...