Can’t Understand Gordan B. Hinkley’s Gender Concept

I just needed to add that there has NEVER existed in nature, in mammals of any sort a Y or YY genotype. Any human being that does not have an X chromosome will NOT develop and will die. Human beings can be born and live fully without a Y chromosome, they can be XX or just X or XXX, but NEVER just Y. Within the DNA of every single living male is both the DNA of a male and female, rendering men dualistic in nature.

I have always assumed that the reason that the Holy Ghost can dwell in both male and females and speak to both of our spirits, is this eternal dualistic character inherit in maleness. I have always assumed that the reason that Jesus Christ can vicariously atone for the sins of both male and female persons is this dualistic nature. I have always had faith that this is why we can pray for our “Heavenly Father” and know that he can comprehend all things – both male and female. This is not to say that Heavenly Mother does not exist.

The concept of a man having only a Y chromosome (no X) is terrifying to me. Such males do not live for days, let alone exist for time and all of eternity. The “extreme male brain”, that is baby boys born with too much testosterone are autistic. They do not react to their mothers voice, to her touch. I could not imagine that such a being – the total, extreme male, would be capable of the love and nurturing, that Heavenly Father and His Son are capable of.

The Theological concept that there could be no “femaleness” in the spiritual DNA of men is beyond my mortal comprehension.

Hi Ray,

I’m not trying to get into an argument, I’m just trying to understand the meaning of what President Hinckly was intending to convey here:

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.

Ok, this did not bother me until Elder Hafen’s speech with insinuated that we have spiritual DNA. If we did, in fact, have “spiritual DNA”, would not each male spirit of our Heavenly Father have both an X and a Y gene? Would this not mean that both male and female spiritual DNA would reside in the spiritual DNA of males? I know that sounds very complicated and even a little CRAZY. But, GBH has stated that “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal and eternal identity. Like I say, I always just assumed that it meant that premortal and postmortal males were just like mortal males – possessing BOTH male and female DNA. Elder Hafen confuses me on this topic.

Thanks Ray,

Someone that loved had Klinefelter’s Syndrome, XXY. I watched as his body began to slowly change – he just wasn’t producing enough testosterone. It wasn’t that he was gay, he wasn’t – he had no interest in sex whatsoever, only a child-like curiosity. If he say a mother breast-feeding, he would comment on how nice the mother’s lounge was and that was it. I lost this person. He couldn’t be given any testosterone because of the risk of it fueling prostate cancer growth. He couldn’t have surgery to remove breasts (which he had, by the way) because he had a blood clotting disorder. All I ever wanted was for him to simply be excepted. I wanted him to be able to just walk home from high school without guys (and girls) lifting up his shirt, exposing his chest and yelling, “I’ll bet you wear a bra”.

I wanted Gordan B. Hinkley to say (just once), yes, intersex children ARE part of God’s plan. I wanted men like Hafen to say, “yes, in some rare cases there are genes, genes which cause sexual variance”.

I never said “gender-less”. I said “sexual intercourse-less”.

Let me try to add some context:

I don’t want to over-complicate things, so I will use “gender” like the proclamation does – which, I believe, really is meant to denote “sex” (NOT sexual activity of any kind, but merely the existence of male and female identity). I think there was NO way for the proclamation to say that “sex” is eternal, since everyone would have assumed that meant “sexual intercourse” – so I think “gender” was the only option.

I don’t have a problem with “gender” in that sense being eternal, and I don’t have a problem with people being born into mortal bodies that don’t match their pre-existent / post-existent “gender”. I don’t think there are armless spirits, but people are born without arms. I don’t think there are blind spirits, but people are born without sight. I don’t think there are “sexually active” spirits, but people are born with sexual attractions. etc., etc., etc. I don’t see sexual intercourse as part of the post-mortal life, so I have no issue with statements that say sexual orientation isn’t eternal – since I don’t believe personally that there will be such a thing as “sexual” orientation after death in the way that we think of it in mortality.

I support the principle of a Law of Chastity fully, since I have seen the horrible result (both to individuals and to societies) of not following a basic Law of Chastity. It’s the details of such a law and how those details affect people whose physiology is outside the “norm” that gets tricky – and, statistically, there is a solid, undeniable norm.

Finally, I don’t like Elder Hafen’s choice of words – not at all. I don’t like apostles and GA’s speculating about scientific stuff that isn’t settled in the scientific community. I don’t sustain them as General Science Authorities, so I don’t like it when they say stuff like Elder Hafen did – since it takes on a quasi-authoritative aura that it shouldn’t. However, I also understand that human sexuality actually is more fluid than many people realize – and that includes those who argue that nobody whose orientation is homosexual can change their attractions. I’ve known too many who thought they were homosexual for a while then realized they actually were bi-sexual – and that is a radical difference that is important to understand. So . . .

I understand the angst and concern and disappointment – and I share much of it, for the same AND for difference reasons than many articulate. I also, however, can’t react as strongly as many – since I believe there are elements of truth to what he said that are being ignored completely in the uproar.