Gender Dysphoria, The Church, and Questions of Morality

Dear readers,

As I worked through some of my feelings and thoughts I rapidly realized that one of the things that bothered me was the lack of direction from the Church concerning how to deal with gender dysphoria. I really wanted clearly defined lines; a box that clearly delineated what was right and wrong. I was used to the Church defining where I should draw moral lines, and I didn't want to deal with the responsibility of making and living with any decisions on my own.

In fact, after I finally admitted to myself that I did in fact have gender dysphoria, the first place I turned to for direction was the Church. However, I found that the Church has very little policy or advice on how to deal with this issue. The Church Handbook of Instruction only contains a couple brief sentences of policy detailing how leaders should handle transgender individuals. In fact, these statements are so brief that I will provide them here:

Church leaders counsel against elective transsexual operations. If a member is contemplating such an operation, a presiding officer informs him of this counsel and advises him that the operation may be cause for formal Church discipline.

A person who is considering an elective transsexual operation may not be baptized or confirmed. Baptism and confirmation of a person who has already undergone an elective transsexual operation require the approval of the First Presidency.

Members who have undergone an elective transsexual operation may not receive the priesthood.

A member who has undergone an elective transsexual operation may not receive a temple recommend.

As you can see from these statements, the Church's policy is almost entirely concerned with 'elective transsexual operation.' The general consensus drawn from this statement is that the church draws a line at genital reassignment surgery (GRS). Now, the majority of transgender individuals never have GRS—even if they have transitioned in every other respect. The surgery is invasive, fairly high risk, and extraordinarily expensive. This leaves a grand total of zero policies directed towards individuals trying to deal with gender dysphoria in ways short of GRS.

After searching through Church policy, I thought that perhaps I could find some answers in Church doctrine. I started looking through the scriptures for any advice that might apply to my situation. After quite a bit of looking, I found a grand total of nothing. Now, there are two scriptures which are used to create a prohibition against cross dressing (a tangentially related concern). Yet neither of these scriptures stand up to close exegetical examination; they're not actually talking about transgender issues at all.

So without official Church policy and without any scriptural support I searched non-canonical sources. The most famous of these would be The Family: A Proclamation to the World which simply states: "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” Gender is eternal.

Now, I have discussed this quotation ad nauseam with various individuals and heard a great number of different interpretations. For example, many transgender Mormons use this statement to affirm their identity. If gender is eternal and they feel this way in this fallen world, their gender must actually be how they feel, and their body is subject to some biological error that makes it the wrong sex. On the other hand, family members and priesthood leaders tend to argue the opposite point: that gender is eternal, gender is based upon your physical sex in this life, and that you are fighting against God's plan for you. These arguments typically devolve into claims of revelation, with each side arguing that they have received personal revelation on the matter. Quite simply arguing over exactly how to interpret gender and the Proclamation to the World becomes a matter of personal interpretation and revelation.

I entered this search assuming that I would find a clear position from the Church on transgender issues. But as I searched I realized that the church didn't really have a position. This lack of church position forces local church leaders to use their own judgement. As I've discussed this with various other transgender Mormons, I am amazed by the number of different opinions and lines that different local leaders draw. I worry that very often these different opinions and lines are based upon societal, political, and cultural standards and perceptions of gender rather than revelation.

The lack of official church position was emphasized this week when Elder Oaks was asked point blank about transgender issues in a press conference. His response was that “being acquainted with the unique problems of a transgender situation is something we have not had experience with, and we have some unfinished business in teaching on that.” Here was an apostle of the Lord acknowledging the fact that the church still had quite a bit of work left to do in understanding and writing policy.

Without being given a box by the church what factors should determine my actions? This question was partially answered by my therapist. We were discussing my need for a box that defined where I was supposed to act. He told me that if I am sincerely seeking answers from the Lord where direction has not been revealed, by definition, I cannot sin. These decisions made in ignorance are merely transgressions and the Lord won't hold me accountable for trying to do my best.

However, I do realize that acting outside of normal gendered behavior makes people very uncomfortable. I constantly ask myself: what right do I as an individual have to impose this discomfort on others; particularly when I have the potential to cause actual emotional and mental harm to those around me? As an answer to this question I find a great scriptural response. Paul, when asked whether or not it was permissible to eat meat sacrificed to pagan gods, taught that while there was no sin in eating the meat perhaps it would be better not to partake and avoid offending others.

Now I'll freely admit that my personal philosophy is very community-oriented; I'm certainly no Ayn Rand. If asked the question: what comes first, the needs of the self or the needs of the community? I would always answer community.

For me community starts with those closest to me. It starts with my dear wife, my immediate family, extended family, and friends. Community extends outward to include people in my ward, at school, and at work. I wonder for each group where moral lines should be drawn. At what point am I—like the people eating meat sacrificed to idols—hurting others? For each group of people there is a different line that needs to be drawn. I constantly wonder where to draw these lines. I tend to err on the side of caution: I'd much rather suffer myself than force suffering on others.

I would be curious where you, the readers, feel the line between the needs of the individual and the needs of the community should be drawn.

Any thought or suggestions are welcome,

Kyle