He-Man wrote: Hope that we'll get something out of this, I mean, something related to this BK-paradigm about a soul having multiple genders.
What the others have said ... that we are really not here to discuss any old abstract concept or ideas expressed in BK language ... is true.
I mean, "souls having gender", "lust", "The Fall" (original sin) ... it is all so 'unreal', unprovable un-disprovable so as to be meaningless or valueless. It cannot be 'proven', it cannot be applied.
You may be ex-BK ... but how much of a BK were you ever in the first place?
Within Brahma Kumarism, as far as I can remember, there was only a division between 'sex' and 'no sex'. There was no discussion or explanation of homosexuality pro or con. The objective was always an almost perfect balance of male and female qualities within the context of total celibacy (Vishnu).
The expressed perfection of human form was supposed to be Lakshmi and Narayan (Golden Aged deities) and they were almost identical except, from the Murlis/senior's classes, the only difference between the two was said to be that females' hair was slightly longer. I remember one 'senior' and trusted Western BK claiming they not only did not have genitals but that the Golden Aged deities did not have anuses either because they produced no waste and procreated via the power of their minds and/or tears (literal quote).
Don't ask me ... I don't write this stuff or make it up. I just report on and document what the Brahma Kumaris (or Buddhists) tell their followers.
Note, within the BKWSU, perfection is "Lakshmi and Narayan" ... not "Narayan and Narayan", so make up your own assumptions !!! (For non-Hindis, Narayan is male, Lakshmi is female).