Question: If gender is “enforced”, is it true that it can’t be immutable?

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Question: If gender is “enforced”, is it true that it can’t be immutable?

Cassandra Hedelius, a member of the FAIR board, presented more on the wisdom of the Church's current transgender policies at the 2022 FAIR Conference. A transcript of her remarks can be found here.

A video of Hedelius' presentation is found below.

Introduction to Question

On February 21, 2020, progressive Latter-day Saint scholar of gender studies and early Christianity Taylor G. Petrey published an opinion piece in the Salt Lake Tribune entitled “Taylor G. Petrey: If biology was immutable, it wouldn’t need to be enforced”. Petrey took aim at the Church’s then-recently-published policies for transgender individuals. The entire article, no longer than 10 paragraphs, will be reproduced below. Following the reproduction of the article, we will provide commentary on it and respond to several of Petrey’s points. Throughout the article, we will highlight in green the portions of Petrey’s article that we will respond to.

Taylor G. Petrey, “Taylor G. Petrey: If biology was immutable, it wouldn’t need to be enforced”

On Feb. 19, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publicly released a new “General Handbook,” a guide for church teachings and policies. There were a number of updates, but among them were new teachings about transgender individuals. In addition, the church launched a new website resources on “Transgender.” The new teachings relax earlier church policies in some ways, but remain committed to a belief in a fixed and immutable “sex” identity that is increasingly discredited.

The new changes are significant. In sum, the old policies outlined that “elective transsexual surgery” would result in excommunication from the church. The old policy was more narrow in prohibiting only surgical transition, leaving a gray area for “social” and hormonal transitions.

In contrast, the new policy explicitly discourages non-surgical transitions, but otherwise seems more accommodating. It allows for trans individuals to use their preferred pronouns in church and on church records, to be baptized and attend and participate in church meetings. Those who transition will not be excommunicated, but transitioning will result in restrictions of certain aspects of church membership, including the ability to exercise priesthood (perform blessings and participate in rituals), participate in rituals in LDS temples and receive some, but not all, church callings.

While those who are affected by these policy changes might laud or lament aspects of the new teachings, it is clear that the church is more inclusive than it used to be on this issue, even if it restricts the freedoms that some leaders offered the trans members of their congregations.

The new pastoral website “Transgender” counsels individuals who have transitioned or are transitioning, as well as their families. It advises about the restrictions on church membership, but encourages communities, families, and individuals to be open, supporting, and loving of those who transition.

The new teachings attempt to straddle an impossible compromise. On one hand, church leaders have become increasingly explicit that “gender” is an immutable aspect of one’s eternal identity, going so far as to reinterpret the 1995 Proclamation on the family to refer to “biological sex at birth.” On the other hand, the recognition of the ambiguities of intersex persons (another updated entry in the “General Handbook”), and the admission that “the Church does not take a position on the causes of people identifying themselves as transgender,” leave “biology” an ambiguous arbiter of a supposedly fixed characteristic.

Today, scientists generally reject the idea of a fixed “biological sex,” since there is no single universal biological marker of sexual difference, let alone one that would determine social concepts like what kinds of clothing one should wear or what bathroom one should use.

Though the new policy appeals to “biological sex,” it also reveal the ways that such a concept carries social, not scientific value in LDS thought. While LDS teachings today no longer replicate the false teachings of earlier leaders that transgender identity is a species of homosexuality, and no longer speculate on its causes, the shifting reasons for opposing transgender practices still indicate that bodies alone, or “biological sex,” does not establish gender identity.

The new policy demonstrates this point in stark terms. The discouragement of “social transitioning,” including practices like pronouns, dress and other forms of self presentation, undermine the claim that what is at stake is “biological sex.” The focus on these “social” practices show that “sex” here functions as a social norm, not a biological fact. There is no biological reason for restricting these social practices. The policy reveals that enforcing social boundaries between male and female remains the primary goal.

If biology was so immutable, it wouldn’t need to be ecclesiastically enforced. In spite of themselves, these new guidelines show that for Latter-day Saints, gender is what one does, not what one is or has. The admission that even biology cannot be the universal arbiter of a sexual identity, and the allowance of trans identities in albeit limited ways, reveal that ultimately “sex” here is a fluid social category, not a fixed biological one.

Response to Criticisms

Biological Sex is Not Discredited

The first incredibly obvious point is that biological sex is not being discredited at all. 98% of all people on earth identify as male or female, are genetically-constructed male or female, have male or female reproductive organs, and produce male or female gametes. This represents the truth articulated by President Spencer W. Kimball that "With relatively few accidents of nature, we are born male or female."

How Does Petrey Know that The Brethren Have "Reinterpreted" The Family Proclamation?

Petrey presents no evidence for the assertion that the Brethren have "reinterpreted" the family proclamation.

Biological Sex Can Still Be a Marker of Eternal Identity

Since 98% of all people on earth identify as male or female, are genetically-constructed male or female, have male or female reproductive organs, and produce male or female gametes, biological sex can represent an eternal identity for those 98% of people. It can also represent an eternal identity for transgender people. Indeed, if we have female reproductive organs, female sex chromosomes, and produce female gametes and our brain tells us that we are not a member of the biological sex our body is organized as, then there is clearly an underlying mental disorder. Why is it that the liberal faction of the medical establishment is trying to mainstream conforming our bodies to our mental content rather than our mental content to our bodies? The latter has almost always been typical approach for healing since it helps us bring our minds into acceptance of reality.

There are intersex individuals and they certainly complicate the picture. Perhaps in the future our Heavenly Father will reveal more about how intersex people fit into the plan. Perhaps patriarchs can reveal the underlying gender of a person's spirit. It's not a current practice of the Church, but it is a logical possibility for what can come in the future.

Scientists Do Not Generally Reject the Notion of A Fixed Biological Sex

Scientists do not generally reject the notion of a fixed biological sex. Petrey cites a New York Times opinion piece by Anne Fausto-Sterling, a notoriously liberal and controversial sexologist to represent this "scientific majority" Petrey has in mind.

Scientists and even lay people can recognize that maleness is intelligible by recognizing the ensemble of genetic, biological, and phenotypic characteristics that make up the vast majority of males and females. Men have XY chromosomes, produce sperm, have male reproductive organs, and are organized for impregnation. Women have XX sex-chromosomes, produce ova, have female reproductive organs, and are organized for conception.

The Social Policies of Church Leaders May Have More to Do With Brain Plasticity

Petrey's point that policies against social transitioning show that gender is more about a social practice rather than a biological marker of identity is also dubious. This since we know about the concept of neuroplasticity. The brain can reorganize its synapses to adapt to new environments and learn new habitual behaviors. Doing things that make us learn maleness and femaleness is important for the development of our gender identity. Taking social transitioning as a serious option for transgender care can condition the merely intellectually curious to develop synapses that make them actually believe they are a member of the sex they were not born as. For those suffering with gender dysphoria, it can create or intensify desires for cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers, and "corrective" surgeries to alter their appearance and biological sex. These treatments are not conducive to helping a gender dysphoric individual come to accept and be comfortable with their biological sex which should be the ultimate goal for any in the medical field who have taken the Hippocratic oath.

There are Biologically-Determined, Sex-Specific, Psychobehavioral Differences Between Men and Women

For what it's worth, majority opinion in the scientific community is that there are indeed biologically-determined, sex-specific, psychobehavioral differences between men and women. Thus, even "gender roles" and gendered behavior unique to male and female have a biological basis.

Conclusion

All of these points show that biological sex can be and is a marker of eternal identity and one that is essential to "progress toward perfection and ultimately [realizing our] divine destiny as heirs of eternal life."

Notes