Thread: Why do some Evangelicals have a problem with transgender? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020362
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Seriously, why?
They're meant to be sola Scriptura, yes? Everything essential is meant to come from Scripture, yes?
I can see where they get to their position on abortion, even if I think that it's lacking nuance.
I can see where they get to their position on homosexuality, even if I think it obviously violates natural justice.
But transgender issues don't figure in Scripture. There's nothing there. There's one mention of cross-dressing I know of, but that's not the same thing, and besides their issue seems to be transgender, not transvestites anyway. And it's one verse; hard to build on a single verse in the Pentateuch which has nothing to compare it with.
So the basis is really shaky. Why has this become a new Shibboleth?
[ 11. November 2017, 23:10: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
I suspect the new attack on transgender persons by the Religious Right is simply an extension of the attack on lesbian and gay people. In the same way, that some evangelicals view same-sex marriage as an attack on traditional marriage, I suspect, transgender rights is seen as an attack on patriarchal gender norms, which according to a certain evangelical outlook, was dictated by God directly from heaven.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Because they are forbidden now to discriminate against black people. So now they have to have something else, to gin up fear and drive donations. Abortion is a classic hardy perennial, but you can't just keep on waving the same terror -- people don't get scared about it any more. So here's a new one.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
I thought it may be this:
quote:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I thought it may be this:
quote:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Massive reading into the text there to get it to say anything about transgender. You'd have to bring a transphobic agenda to the text yourself in the first place.
[ 12. November 2017, 00:17: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
But transgender people are still male and female.
Arguing that surgically assisting someone's physicality to match their innate gender identification is tampering with God's handiwork is like arguing that it's sinful to fix a cleft palate or some other congenital disorder because " God nade them that way." I'd also bet money tat in the case of intersex children Evsngelicals are frantic to have the kid surgically assigned to one gender or the other.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Judith Butler points out a reason for transphobia is that it signifies the fluidity and social construction of gender.
In lay person's terms, if I believe that being male is divinely sanctioned, which includes not only the physical features of maleness, but also the male gender role (the man is head of the household, that men only can preach in the pulpit, that men should govern, etc), if suddenly, if it is demonstrated that things are not so simple and clear cut, then the notion that the male gender role is superior is also threatened.
It also needs to be pointed out that generally speaking, there is more stigma towards male-to-female transition than female-to-male transition. A professor once put it bluntly to me, to demonstrate the underlying misogyny behind transphobia as a way to explain the transphobic point of view: "Why would anyone want to choose to be the weaker sex?"
[ 12. November 2017, 00:49: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I thought it may be this:
quote:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Massive reading into the text there to get it to say anything about transgender. You'd have to bring a transphobic agenda to the text yourself in the first place.
Really? It could be read, and note I *do not* read it this way, that if God is All Good and All Mighty and All Knowing, and He created someone male, to change this would be going against His Ordained Plan (TM). And if you wonder where I'm coming from with this, someone once said this to me.
If this is what you are responding to, sorry, I'm having trouble seeing it as a massive reading into the text (I'd say it's a wrong interpreation of the text). But it is Sunday afternoon, and my brain has been switched off since I got up.
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
But transgender people are still male and female.
Arguing that surgically assisting someone's physicality to match their innate gender identification is tampering with God's handiwork is like arguing that it's sinful to fix a cleft palate or some other congenital disorder because " God made them that way."
There are 2 problems with this assertion: the definition of "innate gender identification", and the end result of surgery and hormone treatment.
Gender identification is not something that can be objectively measured, unlike a person's chromosomal makeup or physical genital phenotype. In some instances, it may be fluid rather than fixed.
In other cases, intense or distressing feelings of gender identification may be a result of a psychological tendency to black-and-white thinking and becoming overly fixated on an issue, which can lead to exploitation of vulnerable people for financial or political gains.
Fixing a cleft palate benefits speech and swallowing. Surgery to remove or alter genital organs has cosmetic outcomes that (if successful) may please the individual, and may allow the organs to be used in different ways for sexual practices, but doesn't necessarily confer any net functional benefit (eg the nerves involved are easily damaged during surgery, so the sexual practices may not be particularly enjoyable, or there may be collateral damage affecting continence) and the organs lose any reproductive capacity that they had. The person needs to take artificial hormones, which are laden with potential side effects.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
I agree with Ian, it is a wrong interpretation. And in some recent research, I talked with a trans-man who had experienced this Scripture shot at transgender from the hip.
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LucyP:
In other cases, intense or distressing feelings of gender identification may be a result of a psychological tendency to black-and-white thinking and becoming overly fixated on an issue, which can lead to exploitation of vulnerable people for financial or political gains.
[/QB]
Sorry, the
URL link above was ineffective due to a deleted colon. Fixed it.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
They most likely think it's a lifestyle choice (as they do about LGB folks); and therefore against the way God made them, and therefore a sin.
If they can be made to understand that it's a medical condition...
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Seriously, why?
They're meant to be sola Scriptura, yes? Everything essential is meant to come from Scripture, yes?
If you read "male and female he created them" as meaning that God created you male or female, then you read it as a theological claim that gender is equivalent to biological sex, and so that transgender doesn't exist.
And, as a consequence, a straight trans woman is "really" a perverted gay man in a dress, who is also denying his God-given gender.
As far as understanding what transgender really is, I think we know two things:
1. We know how trans people report that they feel.
2. There is some evidence that the brains of people who identify as trans men operate more like the brain of the average man than that of the average woman. But we don't really understand brain functions in enough detail to say more than that.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Really? It could be read, and note I *do not* read it this way, that if God is All Good and All Mighty and All Knowing, and He created someone male, to change this would be going against His Ordained Plan (TM). And if you wonder where I'm coming from with this, someone once said this to me.
It's still a reading in the text and not directly what the text says. After all if you want to be flippant it does say he made them Male and Female*, and (more seriously) as this is directly (pretty near parallised) following from "in the image of God" anything it asserts about humans it asserts about the Three.
*I don't know if that works in Hebrew.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It's not just evangelicals. It tends to be a Religious Right thing across the board.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Whatever your deviation from the God ordained Edenic norm, due to the Fall, you can only be a Christian if you are a eunuch for the Kingdom's sake.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Seriously, why?
They're meant to be sola Scriptura, yes? Everything essential is meant to come from Scripture, yes?
You're asking a serious question, which can only be answered by evangelicals themselves or by others who by an act of empathy can think themselves into the evangelical mindset.
I'm not evangelical, but it seems to me that taking the Bible as a whole, it describes a society in which men and women have different social roles, and there's never any doubt about whether someone is male or female. So how could someone who takes the Bible seriously, as normative, possibly conclude that Christians should deviate from that ?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The Bible is normative?! It describes normative societies?!
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
LucyP: The trans people I know are happier and healthier post- transition thsn pre-.
Also: Ironic that " black- and- white" thinking about gender norms is being used as a conserative Christian objection to trsnsgenderism. Who is more binary in thinkung about gender norms than conservative Christians?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
This is not a theoretical issue for me. It became a huge and public issue in the conservative evangelical university where I teach, when a non-tenured professor came out as transgendered and transitioned (female to male).
Pretty much everything that has been said upthread (which I agree with) was part of the brouhaha. As academics, the top administrators were or soon became aware of the science behind this and all that was said upthread. There were high level discussions, carefully and compassionately done with great diligence and thoughtfulness. Experts were brought in for awareness training.
And in the end, his contract was terminated. With full pay, with regret, with compassion (at least from my pov-- his may differ). A popular and accomplished teacher was let go. Reading between the lines, it seems to me that, as educated and aware the admin and faculty became on transgender issues, the inherent difficulty in communicating all that to our diverse constituencies-- prospective students and donors-- was significant enough to pose a real threat to the financial viability of the institution.
I was left appreciating the care and compassion under which the process was undertaken, not particularly angry (but of course it wasn't me that was terminated) but deeply, deeply sad. It seemed to display everything that is broken and wrong in our world and in our evangelical community in particular.
This was a couple of years ago. There's been progress (in this institution) since, although I'm not sure this particular scenario would play out any differently today. And I'm as heartbroken today as I was back then.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
cliffdweller: quote:
And in the end, his contract was terminated. With full pay, with regret, with compassion (at least from my pov-- his may differ). A popular and accomplished teacher was let go.
"Compassionate" ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The Bible is normative?! It describes normative societies?!
It does not. No one has ever claimed it does. Evangelicals IME claim exactly the opposite.
Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on
:
In answer to those who think that gender reassignment surgery is tampering with God's handiwork, what with us all being made in the image of God and all.... This could be a way of God trying to get us to understand him/her/it more? I'm being ambiguous about the gender of divinity if such a thing exists for want of a lack of vocabulary to explain it better.
And to learn to love a bit more while we're about it.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Jealousy
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The Bible is normative?! It describes normative societies?!
It does not. No one has ever claimed it does. Evangelicals IME claim exactly the opposite.
Om sure oll 'ave ter get me coat again Dark Knight, but I thought Russ ... OHHHH! He ent an evo.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The Bible is normative?! It describes normative societies?!
It does not. No one has ever claimed it does. Evangelicals IME claim exactly the opposite.
Then how do we decide which of its many contradictory postulates to believe, and commandments to follow?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
In answer to those who think that gender reassignment surgery is tampering with God's handiwork, what with us all being made in the image of God and all.... This could be a way of God trying to get us to understand him/her/it more? I'm being ambiguous about the gender of divinity if such a thing exists for want of a lack of vocabulary to explain it better.
Of course (as you know) we tamper with "God's handiwork" all the time. Vaccines are tampering with God's handiwork. Building a dam is tampering with God's handiwork. Orthodontics is tampering with God's handiwork. Selective breeding is tampering with God's handiwork. Corrective lenses are tampering with God's handiwork. And on, and on.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
In answer to those who think that gender reassignment surgery is tampering with God's handiwork, what with us all being made in the image of God and all.... This could be a way of God trying to get us to understand him/her/it more? I'm being ambiguous about the gender of divinity if such a thing exists for want of a lack of vocabulary to explain it better.
And to learn to love a bit more while we're about it.
More practically, if surgery is tinkering with God's design there's a long long list of things that we do to ourselves that need to be addressed by evangelicals. Braces on your teeth; cataract surgery, hip or knee replacement, c-sections, bunionectomies, the list is endless.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
It's telling, I suppose, that a supposedly Christian university puts money before justice.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
More practically, if surgery is tinkering with God's design there's a long long list of things that we do to ourselves that need to be addressed by evangelicals. Braces on your teeth; cataract surgery, hip or knee replacement, c-sections, bunionectomies, the list is endless.
Or cosmetic surgery - which is huge in parts of the US.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
cliffdweller: quote:
And in the end, his contract was terminated. With full pay, with regret, with compassion (at least from my pov-- his may differ). A popular and accomplished teacher was let go.
"Compassionate"
Well yeah, the air quotes fit. And as noted, those are my words-- not the admin, and certainly not the well-qualified teacher who was let go.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
In answer to those who think that gender reassignment surgery is tampering with God's handiwork, what with us all being made in the image of God and all.... This could be a way of God trying to get us to understand him/her/it more? I'm being ambiguous about the gender of divinity if such a thing exists for want of a lack of vocabulary to explain it better.
Of course (as you know) we tamper with "God's handiwork" all the time. Vaccines are tampering with God's handiwork. Building a dam is tampering with God's handiwork. Orthodontics is tampering with God's handiwork. Selective breeding is tampering with God's handiwork. Corrective lenses are tampering with God's handiwork. And on, and on.
After the horribly regressive
Nashville Statement came out (which bashes women, gays, and a host of others, but seems to reserve it's most biting scorn to transgendered people) in one of many such debates (on this forum and others), I mentioned my infant granddaughter, who was born with 6 different heart defects, the most serious was it is a single ventricle heart. Had she not had surgery on her 2nd day of life, she would not have survived the week. She has just come thru her 2nd open heart surgery (well, praise God!) with at least one more before she turns 3. It seems fair to me as well to note that, for a literalist, it would appear God created her with a single ventricle heart, and we are "tampering" by re-plumbing it to make the blood flow to her lungs. In fact, we (well, not me, the surgeons) are re-plumbing it in a way that is unnatural-- not found in nature (at least among humans-- there are single-ventricle animals but not humans). I would agree that by the same argument used against transgendered persons, we would be defying God by approving her surgery.
I raised this several times in debates with the fundies defending the Nashville Statement. The response: crickets.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's telling, I suppose, that a supposedly Christian university puts money before justice.
Yes. In our defense, I suspect that had they not done so, the entire institution would have gone down, and we'd all be out of a job-- and students out of an education (we do a pretty good job of reaching some underserved populations).
But yeah.
It felt crappy then, it feels crappy now.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
More practically, if surgery is tinkering with God's design there's a long long list of things that we do to ourselves that need to be addressed by evangelicals. Braces on your teeth; cataract surgery, hip or knee replacement, c-sections, bunionectomies, the list is endless.
Or cosmetic surgery - which is huge in parts of the US.
Even regular cosmetics which hide what God created.
[ 12. November 2017, 22:40: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
While I agree that scripture does not offer much help regarding sex/gender transition issues, there is the case of the Ethiopian eunuch, though the surgery he endured was almost certainly non-consensual and, therefore, an involuntary transformation of his sex/gender identity. An imaginative interpretation might point out that while his enforced condition left him in limbo regarding his sex/gender identity and rendered him ritually unclean, he was, nevertheless, worthy of baptism into the Christian faith as one of the first converts. It is also clear from the narrative that the Eunuch identified his own experience with that of the Suffering Servant. Would it be pushing the story too far to suggest that the sufferings of Christ might be related to the theme of this discussion? I think not,
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
I think it's simply that they think transpeople are icky... the same way they think gay people are icky. And anything icky must be a sin, right?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
We also have to factor in the way transgendered persons have become the latest scapegoat by politicians intent on pandering to the religious right-- and whipping up some fear-mongering to help drive it home. It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg: conservative religious preachers start piling on gays and lesbians; the pols pile on to win their vote, but after awhile one homophobic right wing politician starts to look the same as another homophobic right wing politician. They have to make them selves stand out from the crowd, so all of a sudden we need to be Really Really Afraid of transgendered people preying on nice sweet church ladies in public bathrooms. No, we don't need to worry about actual shootings or medical bankruptcies or Senate pedophiles-- not when there's the imaginary boogeyman that sounds vaguely sexual and Not Like Me so it must be deviant! Sure, there's not much of a record of these assaults actually happening (at least not assault by transgendered people-- and attacks on them-- well, those don't count...) but we're really really sure we're on the brink of a major epidemic of such random assaults.
The GOP has figured out that fear sells even better than sex does. If you can package the two together, you've got a winner.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The Bible is normative?! It describes normative societies?!
It does not. No one has ever claimed it does. Evangelicals IME claim exactly the opposite.
Om sure oll 'ave ter get me coat again Dark Knight, but I thought Russ ... OHHHH! He ent an evo.
I think Russ' claim is disingenuous, as evangelicals tend not to claim that the world of the Bible is normative, but marred by sin, and that people of faith are supposed to live by another standard. This standard is outlined in the Bible, and condensed by a set of exegetical and hermeneutical practices that I am not commenting on here. The point is that Evos tend to think the people in the world of the Bible failed to live up to that standard, because they couldn't.
Russ is just wrong about the evangelical worldview, which they claim not to share.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
But transgender people are still male and female.
Arguing that surgically assisting someone's physicality to match their innate gender identification is tampering with God's handiwork is like arguing that it's sinful to fix a cleft palate or some other congenital disorder because " God nade them that way." I'd also bet money tat in the case of intersex children Evsngelicals are frantic to have the kid surgically assigned to one gender or the other.
Oh, well said. It is all so sad.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'd also bet money tat in the case of intersex children Evsngelicals are frantic to have the kid surgically assigned to one gender or the other.
Oh, well said. It is all so sad.
As at least a historic evangelical, my default position regarding many situations (not just this one and not just on sexuality), has long been that of Paul: "each of you should remain as you were when God called you" (1 Cor 7:20) which ISTM reflects the Hippocratic Oath of "first do no harm" and the commonly-held wisdom "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
That is not an absolute law, but I think due reflection is called for before any invasive surgery.
I decided I could never be a member of the UK Evangelical Alliance when I discovered (thanks to ChristinaMarie on these boards) that they were recommending reversal of transgender surgery post-conversion (I have no idea if this is still the case; I don't know where 1 Cor 7:20 fitted into their thinking).
All that said, I think intersex is a separate issue to transgender, and the question of whether surgical gender assignment is the right thing to do is an extremely vexed one. To start with, intersex covers a whole swath of distinct conditions. To carry on with, it's very hard to find out about people who have had surgical gender assignment who have found it satisfactory, simply because they are a lot less vocal (this is not to minimise in the slightest the barbarity and emotional damage suffered by those who were less fortunate).
[ 13. November 2017, 07:01: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think the truth is that many (perhaps most) Evangelicals are deeply conservative and pander after a "simpler time" when the didn't have to deal with complexity and could just make black/white statements about things that don't affect them.
I have long thought that despite their loud shouting, the bible doesn't really come into it - and more often is a way to back up their pre-existing bias and opinion rather than the source of their thinking.
Of course, the difficulty comes when the complicated issue is not about some nameless people "out there" in the world, not about someone else's child at school, not about the provision of toilets and who wears what uniform, but about one's own child.
I suggest that Evangelicals are many things, but as a group* they're not about abandoning their children.
So I suspect many feel some incredible cognitive dissonance whereby they feel the need to read (and possibly participate in) "ant-trans" theology whilst at the same time having to deal with it in their own home. Most likely they'll go through various stages of grief and denial and heartache before somehow coming to terms with the reality that their child may indeed need surgery just to be able to live with themselves.
* I know this is a ridiculous term, given the complexity of what it means to be an Evangelical
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
They are helplessly feckless slaves to a text. Been there. To a ragbag of evolving prejudice. Four thousand years of inferred oral and literary culture is the tip of ten times more. And again, and ... back in to pre-sapience. That four thousand years is nowt. There is a huge bolus of indigestible savagery stuck in, half way down, our throats, making us panic. Christians, Muslims have thousands of years to go before we either vomit it out or swallow and digest it with the enzymes of rational faith.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
They are helplessly feckless slaves to a text. Been there. To a ragbag of evolving prejudice. Four thousand years of inferred oral and literary culture is the tip of ten times more. And again, and ... back in to pre-sapience. That four thousand years is nowt. There is a huge bolus of indigestible savagery stuck in, half way down, our throats, making us panic. Christians, Muslims have thousands of years to go before we either vomit it out or swallow and digest it with the enzymes of rational faith.
I'm increasingly thinking that they're not actually slaves to a text. If anything, they're slaves to a particular interpretation of an old text which is reinforced so many times that believers cannot tell the difference between the interpretation and the text.
The evidence of this is that there are Evangelicals who believe equal-and-opposite things, with equal vehemence, allegedly based on the same biblical text.
There are clearly some Evangelicals who think hard about the text and use complicated scholarly arguments for their positions. But I think the vast majority of those who talk about "biblical truths" aren't actually talking about the bible at all, but are able to talk loudly and convincingly about their interpretation in such a way as to convince others of its validity.
In fact it seems that the definition of Evangelical is almost "talk loudly, wear sensible clothing and look sincere".
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
We're saying the same thing, but you're saying it better, he said fawningly patronizingly. Behind their hermeneutics is a culturally and biologically enforced epistemology. Intelligence, intellect is no defence as you imply. It's the same for all the People of the Book and always has been. Right back to and including Jesus. It's human.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Behind their hermeneutics is a culturally and biologically enforced epistemology
he said fawningly patronizingly.
I really hate it when social scientists think they are somehow outside humanity and its frailty. Theologians too, of any stripe.
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Judith Butler points out a reason for transphobia is that it signifies the fluidity and social construction of gender.
In lay person's terms, if I believe that being male is divinely sanctioned, which includes not only the physical features of maleness, but also the male gender role (the man is head of the household, that men only can preach in the pulpit, that men should govern, etc), if suddenly, if it is demonstrated that things are not so simple and clear cut, then the notion that the male gender role is superior is also threatened.
Thank you - that has explained a lot about one of my cousins' attitudes to transgender people. They really really wind him up and I couldn't see why (given I doubt he's ever met one) but now you've made that point about it being about the role and rights of the male in a patriarchal society being undermined I totally get it.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
As someone implied earlier, it's because the genetic, psychological and social research, taken all together, make it clear that there is a much greater fluidity in human nature than implied by a binary and fixed view of gender. That's unsettling if you like things to be settled.
And I think that underpinning this whole 'People of the Book' thing is the fear of disturbance to tradition thinking. 'This Book is right, this rock is wrong' explains anti-evolutionary views very well. You just need to extend the metaphor to 'This Book is right, this gender research is wrong'.
Lots of folks don't like being taken out of their comfort zones, preferring traditional certainties. Maybe there are a lot of conservatives of that type in evangelicalism, but personally I've found them all over the place, and not just amongst people of faith.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye Eutychus. We seem to be trapped in the hypnopompic phase of waking up as a species, "emotional and credulous dreaming cognition trying to make sense of real world stolidity"; the former wins in senile dementia. Jesus was as trapped by it as we but for His divine nature. I fear it's winning for now as Trump and Brexit demonstrate. How we could learn from such delusions, irrational political and religious discourse, as a culture? In the case of Trump there is a silver edge to the very dark cloud. He knows EXACTLY what he's doing. The trouble is the masses barely ever wake up to that even in plural democratic society. They fall back to sleep, lose enlightened ground, even in Scandinavia.
[ 13. November 2017, 09:02: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
it being about the role and rights of the male in a patriarchal society being undermined I totally get it.
I'm increasingly seeing this and all those other debates as ultimately being all about that, too.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
How we could learn from such delusions, irrational political and religious discourse, as a culture?
We incarnate Kingdom of God values (the last shall be first, the less you have to start with the more God can multiply and the more you have left over, in Christ there is no male nor female, the greatest is the servant of all) to the best of our ability and eschew temptations to do otherwise as best we can.
We don't do it as a culture, or as a sub-culture, but as a counter-culture.
That's being prophetic.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
it being about the role and rights of the male in a patriarchal society being undermined I totally get it.
I'm increasingly seeing this and all those other debates as ultimately being all about that, too.
Aye, well said Anglican_Brat, Hele-Eva. Gender drives the text. And confront unenlightened testosterone at your peril.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Lots of folks don't like being taken out of their comfort zones, preferring traditional certainties. Maybe there are a lot of conservatives of that type in evangelicalism, but personally I've found them all over the place, and not just amongst people of faith.
Oh this is for certain. I was reflecting on this whilst overhearing a group of old women talking about this topic in the library. From what they said, their opinions were not coming (or at least not directly) from Evangelical values and/or teaching, but instead from "common sense" values.
The irony of how much "common sense" values had changed during their lifetime seemed to be passing them by.
For example they were talking about the cost of realignment surgery. Which seems paradoxical given that a few minutes earlier they'd been talking about their various ailments - which clearly required expensive medication and surgery that in previous decades would not have been available, and might even have been considered immoral.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I also wonder if the issue here is that Evangelicals feel that the ground is shifting beneath their feet.
For whatever reason, they've come to believe that the generally accepted "moral" position in wider society on a range of issues overlapped with theirs 50 or 60 years ago.* They're now seeing social attitudes on various issues running away from them and they therefore feel like the "remnant of believers", holding onto the truth whilst society is on a runaway train towards hell.
* which doesn't seem to me to be based on anything very much. I don't really know why anyone would believe that.
[ 13. November 2017, 09:12: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
* which doesn't seem to me to be based on anything very much. I don't really know why anyone would believe that.
Could it be back then more people went to church and the church was more prominent in society (I remember in the 80s filling in forms where I ticked CofE or Catholic) that they assumed society was in line with them?
I hadn't thought about society "rushing" ahead and the impact it may have on someone who thinks society thinks like them. Interesting. Thanks.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by mr cheesy quote:
For example they were talking about the cost of realignment surgery. Which seems paradoxical given that a few minutes earlier they'd been talking about their various ailments - which clearly required expensive medication and surgery that in previous decades would not have been available, and might even have been considered immoral.
But in the world of "common sense" this is a no-brainer: treating people already alive for physical ailments and chronic conditions is putting right/ alleviating something that has arisen as part of "life". Gender reasignment treatment, on the other hand, is seen as being about choice - the person wishing to change gender is choosing this path and the unspoken thought is that they could equally choose either not to change or could, once the transition has happened, decide that they have made a mistake/ prefer their original gender.
All of this is clouded by the seeming explosion in the number of children (predominantly girls) who are coming forward saying they wish to change gender. Most, if not all, of us will have known a girl as we were growing up who was quite convinced she'd prefer to be male and who exhibited behaviours (including refusing to answer to anything other than the chosen "other gender" name for extended periods) that today would mean an automatic referral to medical help/ counselling; yet most of us know that the vast majority of these girls have grown-up to be happy women, etc, etc, etc. And the "common sense" view is that there would have been some very grave mis-diagnoses - and treatments including surgery - if the expressed and determined wishes of these girls had been acted on.
I'm not making light of this but a case can be made for people to hang-fire and maybe spend a bit more time exploring why it is that there are so many young girls deeply unhappy with being female.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But in the world of "common sense" this is a no-brainer: treating people already alive for physical ailments and chronic conditions is putting right/ alleviating something that has arisen as part of "life". Gender reasignment treatment, on the other hand, is seen as being about choice - the person wishing to change gender is choosing this path and the unspoken thought is that they could equally choose either not to change or could, once the transition has happened, decide that they have made a mistake/ prefer their original gender.
I don't know enough about the detail of this to comment or how many regrets there are.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I think the common-sense view is missing the fact that this hanging-fire is already happening.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I agree with l'organist that there's a difference between accommodating gender fluidity that is, as it were, a pre-existing condition, and actively promoting various gender stances as a range of viable, valid options that young people can choose between at leisure.
I think the latter is a source of genuine concern, as it opens up the prospect of non-trivial treatment in response to what may just be a passing doubt.
However, I tend to think the media blow up alleged examples of active promotion out of all proportion. I haven't read anything about the CoE tutu recommendation but the media coverage I've glimpsed reinforces my opinion.
[ 13. November 2017, 09:55: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Could it be back then more people went to church and the church was more prominent in society (I remember in the 80s filling in forms where I ticked CofE or Catholic) that they assumed society was in line with them?
I'm not entirely sure how to parse this. In the past, clearly Christianity had a wider visibility in society than it has today.
But I'm not sure that society in general ever really shared the values of the church (never mind the values of Evangelicals). I'm not sure there was ever a time when there was significant overlap between the values of society and Evangelical values.
I suppose this is up for debate - presumably it depends on what it is that is being discussed.
For example on marriage and sexual ethics. Evangelicals have been for certain things and against certain other things for a long time. Some of this had an overlap with the teaching of other churches - for example with respect to divorce.
And sometimes this had a wider impact on society outwith of the church. And yet at the same time there have always been a wider group who have ignored the Evangelical teaching. I'm not even sure that a majority ever really accepted it.
I dunno - I can't really think of anything that was a generally accepted societal truth 50 or 60 or more years ago that overlapped with Evangelical beliefs.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
I'm surprised there has been so little discussion of the issues raised by transgender, and I don't see the point in using this as a dig at hyper-biblicist evos, who may exist in Karl's neck of the woods, but not in mine.
Here is my list of discussion points.
1. Do we believe it is still valid to speak of normative human beings, or is everything to be viewed as equally acceptable as part of the kaleidoscope of human diversity?
This affects what we view as "needing to be put right" as opposed to "needing to be accepted" and is relevant to many areas. Autism springs to mind, but I remember when working in the US there was a campaign against researching cures for deafness because it implied "something to be fixed" with deaf people. To take one example: if we could early-detect ASD so as to counter the androgen resistance to, effectively, eliminate ASD as if were a disease, should we do it? Or should we accept ASD as just one of many variants to be allowed?
I suppose it more likely that religious conservatives want to maintain the idea of normative humanity and that in this norm there should be male and female. Other conditions are accepted, as is autism, or deafness, in the sense of accepting the people, but are still viewed as exceptions to be fixed.
2. How is gender determined and what are the consequences if we weaken/break the link between gender and physical bodily reality.
At one extreme are those who believe that anyone can self-register for whatever gender they want. This seems to imply that gender should not be an issue, rather like I can choose the name by which I am known. Others (I am no exper so this may be wrong) believe it has to be on the basis of physical reality, i.e. true gender indeterminacy. Probably most believe that it is based on the strong expressed opinion of the individual, as in the only case I have read about in the biography of the well known (in certain circles) free-market economist Deidre (prev. Dan) McCluskey, who transitioned well into life having fathered two chlidren and having seemingly at least a good enough marriage.
This then gets on to why should we be concerned, and this leads into those areas where sexual segregation is the norm the most obvious being competitive sport. But it is women's locker rooms that have got all the publicity. It seems daft that a male athlete should be able to self-declare to participate in women's athletics, and maybe this is far off, but it's the sort of thing people worry about.
3. Finally what is the best way to protect/nurtures children given that if transition is to be done it is most successful if started early. And this is behind the controversy in Canada that was the subject of a recent BBC documentary.
But I've said enough.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Sorry - correction. In my example I meant AIS - Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, not ASD (Autistic Spectrum Disorder).
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Anteater quote:
How is gender determined and what are the consequences if we weaken/break the link between gender and physical bodily reality?
Part of the problem, as I see it, Anteater, is that the analytical distinction between Sex and Gender has been removed: the first a determination of genetic inheritance and the second a matter of social construction. Germain Greer has got into an awful lot of hot water for wanting to insist on the importance of the difference. For what it's worth: as to sex I'm male, as to gender I like to think of myself as masculine but hopefully in touch with my feminine side- others may disagree!
Of course, at the margins sex is less binary than many like to think, and in such cases where sex was difficult to determine obstetricians would arbitrarily advise the mother as to which sex the child was to be raised.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
...rational faith.
I wonder if that is an oxymoron.
******
I hear radio discussions on these topics and when I hear about parents having surgery for pre-ppubescent children, I do wonder how much the child really understands his/her emotions and the way they vary during that time in their lives or how much the parents have influenced them. I do not know the answer and have never needed to know it, but accepting the child's feelings and perhaps wondering whether time and reflection are needed.... well, that might be the most rational way forward.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, I tend to think the media blow up alleged examples of active promotion out of all proportion. I haven't read anything about the CoE tutu recommendation but the media coverage I've glimpsed reinforces my opinion.
I have read the recommendations, and AFAICT it was basically around the avoidance of enforcing gender stereotypes when children are playing.
It used the example of children playing dress up - which in the current media context can be mischaracterised as 'pickle kereckness gone MAD!'
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm not making light of this but a case can be made for people to hang-fire and maybe spend a bit more time exploring why it is that there are so many young girls deeply unhappy with being female.
Agreed. Also, because this is comparatively recent, there are no trial results, and in any case, some sort of trial would be impossible.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
...rational faith.
I wonder if that is an oxymoron.
******
I hear radio discussions on these topics and when I hear about parents having surgery for pre-ppubescent children, I do wonder how much the child really understands his/her emotions and the way they vary during that time in their lives or how much the parents have influenced them. I do not know the answer and have never needed to know it, but accepting the child's feelings and perhaps wondering whether time and reflection are needed.... well, that might be the most rational way forward.
Aye, it's certainly rational to posit purpose grounding existence. Especially as something beyond all known and ever knowable physics generates coherent universes. Just another blind watchmaker I'm sure.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
1. Do we believe it is still valid to speak of normative human beings, or is everything to be viewed as equally acceptable as part of the kaleidoscope of human diversity?
I guess you are presuming that your initial premise was at some point accepted universally? Or am I missing your point?
[ 13. November 2017, 12:54: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Dark Knight:
Not necessarily universally, but at least within the culture that one is part of.
And what is viewed as normative will develop over time but most of the time we do have a generally agreed idea although it is always open to revision.
For instance: right-handedness was once view as the norm and attempts were made to correct for left-handedness. This has now been abandoned. For most people, the ability to hear is viewed as the norm so that deafness is viewed as a disability we should seek to overcome.
I would guess that most people would view being biologically male or female as the norm, and that being of indeterminate sex is viewed as a problem which will seen as a burden on those affected. Maybe inter-sex people object to that - I do not know.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I have wondered how I would have respondered to the transgender idea at certain times in my life. I definitely went through a spell of wishing my Dad (birthday 17th March) had won the discussion over my name, so that I would have a number of gender neutral, but usually male, short forms to choose from. There was a a girl called Petronella in Malcolm Saville's books who insisted on being known as Peter. I wanted a train set as well as dolls. I borrowed books called "100 things a boy can do", because they were more interesting than the girls' activities. (I'm not sure I ever did them, though. But making your own coal gas in a golden syrup tin certainly had making barbola flowers around a mirror beaten as something to aim for.) I read the Boys Brigade magazine my Dad had to distribute before it went out. I very much wanted an alternative to squatting on stinging nettles when needing to relieve myself in the woods. I fix things and like tools and gadgets.
But I don't think I am a male trapped in a female body. So I find the rush to transition by others puzzling. I do wonder if some of it is in response to increasing limitations on female activities. (I saw a girl out on a bike yesterday, with a bunch of lads. I think the long loose hair was a mistake, but that seems to be mandatory nowadays. I wish I saw more girls out, with or without the local Secret Seven or whoever.)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
...rational faith.
I wonder if that is an oxymoron.
******
I hear radio discussions on these topics and when I hear about parents having surgery for pre-ppubescent children, I do wonder how much the child really understands his/her emotions and the way they vary during that time in their lives or how much the parents have influenced them. I do not know the answer and have never needed to know it, but accepting the child's feelings and perhaps wondering whether time and reflection are needed.... well, that might be the most rational way forward.
The situation in the UK may be different, but in the US there is strict protocol for sex reassignment surgery, such that it would not be an option for pre-pubescent children. What IS available is hormone blockers, which allow pre-pubescent transgender children to avoid developing secondary sexual characteristics, which makes transition later much, much easier. It is controversial-- as noted above, some percentage of transgender youth do seem to experience fluidity, and will align with their birth-assigned gender at some point in adolescence. But those who do not generally experience a great deal of trauma in adolescence, with a greater risk of suicide. When I first read about this in Atlantic Monthly article I was filled with such sympathy for parents having to make such a deeply, deeply fraught decision on their child's behalf, with no real knowledge of what alternative future you are avoiding.
[ 13. November 2017, 16:01: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I agree with l'organist that there's a difference between accommodating gender fluidity that is, as it were, a pre-existing condition, and actively promoting various gender stances as a range of viable, valid options that young people can choose between at leisure.
This philosophy says that being gender-fluid is wrong/bad, regardless of why.
quote:
I think the latter is a source of genuine concern, as it opens up the prospect of non-trivial treatment in response to what may just be a passing doubt.
No surgery or therapy should ever be on a whim. As far as I am aware, the gender variety are not.
As far as the media exaggerating the issue, if it weren't for the "OMG. they are coming for our genitals"! reactions of certain people, there would be no issue to exaggerate.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This philosophy says that being gender-fluid is wrong/bad, regardless of why.
No it doesn't. There's a difference between helping people through identity issues they already have on the one hand (good), and offering them identity alternatives they'd never envisaged and which they may see, mistakenly, as a solution to an entirely separate issue (ethically dubious).
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This philosophy says that being gender-fluid is wrong/bad, regardless of why.
No it doesn't. There's a difference between helping people through identity issues they already have on the one hand (good), and offering them identity alternatives they'd never envisaged and which they may see, mistakenly, as a solution to an entirely separate issue (ethically dubious).
‘Offering Identity alternatives’
I don’t even know what that means. People don’t need to be offered anything to know that they don’t feel as they have been expected to feel.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This philosophy says that being gender-fluid is wrong/bad, regardless of why.
No it doesn't. There's a difference between helping people through identity issues they already have on the one hand (good), and offering them identity alternatives they'd never envisaged and which they may see, mistakenly, as a solution to an entirely separate issue (ethically dubious).
‘Offering Identity alternatives’
I don’t even know what that means.
Confusing as hell. But what I read in it is that someone without a fixed gender, or a gender conflict is broken and no judgement will be applied to a broken person. But someone "deciding" they wish to express their gender differently is a bad thing.
Hidden behind the boogie man of loping off Billy's genitals because he played with a doll.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
It seems that some here are seriously underestimating the complexity of gender reassignment. It's not like a rhinoplasty -- patients don't just go to a doctor and say, "I'd rather be the other sex -- fix me, Doc!"
The therapeutic process to determone if someone is a valid candidate can take years -- some patients will not meet the criterila -- and the standard of care includes candidates living as members of the opposite sex for at least a year.
This isn't about a kid saying, "Boys have more fun playing outdoors and getting messy and roughhousing -- I want to be a boy." It's not about someone who enjoys cross- dressing. It's not like deciding you want rhinoplasty or a tat or a boob job.
My spouse's deceased former partner was a therapist who speciized in gender dysphoria/transition, so I have become efucated in that process. It isn't a trivial thing.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
It seems that some here are seriously underestimating the complexity of gender reassignment.
IMO, some are not trying to understand the issue or the process, but reacting to imagined "problem".
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
An imagined problem of conservative Evangelicals trying to theologize their feelings of discomfort over gender fluidity, or an imagined problem of people convinced that their bodies don't match their internal gender identification?
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
LutheranChik quote:
It seems that some here are seriously underestimating the complexity of gender reassignment
I'm one of those who have to be counted amongst the ignorant, and I guess most of us are less informed than you are, LutheranChik On these matters I guess my disposition is chacun à son goût.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
an imagined problem of people convinced that their bodies don't match their internal gender identification?
I'm convinced that conviction is not imagined. What I'm not convinced about is that having such a conviction is the equivalent of "someone "deciding" they wish to express their gender differently", to quote LB.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
An imagined problem of conservative Evangelicals trying to theologize their feelings of discomfort over gender fluidity,
This one. I do not think gender fluidity is imagined. History shows that it has been around a good deal longer than many civilisations understanding of gender.
ISTM, the the haters gonna hate because fear and control are underlying issues.
The in-betweeners, such as Eutychus' apparent position, are trying to bridge the gap between dealing with what the world is and their interpretation of the world should be.
It isn't that I do not understand their turmoil, it is that I think it is inconsistent.
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on
:
L'Organist wrote, a lot of posts earllier on this thread: quote:
maybe spend a bit more time exploring why it is that there are so many young girls deeply unhappy with being female.
That would push the question into the area of institutionalized gender inequalities within our societies and cultures: men have more opportunities [of many different kinds] than women, so...
But gender dysphoria applies equally to males who aspire to being female, which in this approach would be paradoxical.
It seems to me that whereas – as several Shipmates have commented earlier – we all share at least some characteristics or tendencies of the 'other' gender – some more, some less so – gender DYSphoria is when someone knows that they are NOT of the gender that their body would suggest. It goes way beyond 'exploring the fem/masc sides of my personality', to: I do not belong where my biomorphological characteristics currently have me categorized.
And there is plenty of evidence – PLENTY of evidence – that this awareness MAY become clear, to the person themself and/or those around them, either at a very early age or well into adulthood.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Yes, I could give a list of things about me that are stereotypically non-masculine, but I'm not an entirely cis-man despite those things; they're utterly irrelevant to the fact that I just feel male. If I woke up tomorrow to find I'd lost me knob and gained a pair of tits I'd feel - I'd know I was in the wrong body, no matter how much I loathe football and never watch Top Gear. And I can imagine how one could equally know one was in the wrong body, even if were the one one was born in. Quite unconnected with whether that person prided themselves on being able to fart the star-stangled banner.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
1. Do we believe it is still valid to speak of normative human beings, or is everything to be viewed as equally acceptable as part of the kaleidoscope of human diversity?
I thought this was spot on. Evangelicals, ISTM, believe in praying for the healing of other people. Asking God for a cure, to restore the person to normality, equated with health. (Amongst many other things of course; this is just one part of their belief system). God wants people to be healthy, wants Christians to value health. That cancer, that sickness, that disability, are an affliction that comes from the Devil.
Karl asked why transgender is a hot issue for evangelicals ehen Scripture says little about it.
The answer - as anteater's question makes clear - is that it's a hot issue because it's a paradigm clash. No-one believes that persecuting those who are merely different is a good thing; nobody believes that being sick or disabled is a good thing. The question is where the boundary lies between one paradigm and the other.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
LutheranChik quote:
It seems that some here are seriously underestimating the complexity of gender reassignment
I'm one of those who have to be counted amongst the ignorant, and I guess most of us are less informed than you are, LutheranChik On these matters I guess my disposition is chacun à son goût.
I found the Atlantic Monthly article I linked above extremely helpful in understanding the situation. And again, the controversy is really about hormone-blockers, not sex-reassignment surgery. As LC noted, in the US, there is a high bar for being accepted as a surgical candidate, and it is only open to informed adults who have undertaken years of therapy and lived at least a year in the new gender.
With hormone-blockers it's a different situation-- it's not permanent, and it's not surgery. It definitely makes transition later much easier when you haven't developed secondary sexual characteristics.
But it has to be done before puberty-- which means parents have to sign off on such a momentous decision. From the Atlantic Monthly article it looks like the odds are mostly in favor of the blockers-- again, huge advantages to later transition, easier to "fit in", and greatly reduced trauma/risk of suicide. But there is that small percentage of transgender children who seem to "grow out of it" (or however that should be phrased) in adolescence. But since the blockers need to begin before adolescence, there's really no way to tell which group your particular child falls in.
I have nothing but sympathy for any parent having to make that choice.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
1. Do we believe it is still valid to speak of normative human beings, or is everything to be viewed as equally acceptable as part of the kaleidoscope of human diversity?
I thought this was spot on. Evangelicals, ISTM, believe in praying for the healing of other people. Asking God for a cure, to restore the person to normality, equated with health. (Amongst many other things of course; this is just one part of their belief system). God wants people to be healthy, wants Christians to value health. That cancer, that sickness, that disability, are an affliction that comes from the Devil.
Karl asked why transgender is a hot issue for evangelicals ehen Scripture says little about it.
The answer - as anteater's question makes clear - is that it's a hot issue because it's a paradigm clash. No-one believes that persecuting those who are merely different is a good thing; nobody believes that being sick or disabled is a good thing. The question is where the boundary lies between one paradigm and the other.
Spot on.
fwiw, I actually do believe illness/disease/genetic mutations (such as my granddaughters) are, quite literally "of the devil" and will one day be "set right" in the coming Kingdom (cue Martin's angst over my appeals to "the devil"). But, as you suggest, the line between "different" and 'disease" is very very fine, and I think this is one such place.
But most evangelicals, as much as we believe in healing prayer, also believe in medical healing-- that God works in and thru science. So I thank God for every advance that can aid those with gender dysphoria-- both surgical and hormone blockers.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But it [hormone blocker therapy] has to be done before puberty-- which means parents have to sign off on such a momentous decision. From the Atlantic Monthly article it looks like the odds are mostly in favor of the blockers-- again, huge advantages to later transition, easier to "fit in", and greatly reduced trauma/risk of suicide. But there is that small percentage of transgender children who seem to "grow out of it" (or however that should be phrased) in adolescence. But since the blockers need to begin before adolescence, there's really no way to tell which group your particular child falls in.
But the great thing here is that the blockers, unlike surgery, are only temporary. Once you stop taking them, puberty takes over.
quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
But gender dysphoria applies equally to males who aspire to being female, which in this approach would be paradoxical.
Vocabulary quibble: they don't aspire to being female. They feel female.
[ 14. November 2017, 00:46: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But it [hormone blocker therapy] has to be done before puberty-- which means parents have to sign off on such a momentous decision. From the Atlantic Monthly article it looks like the odds are mostly in favor of the blockers-- again, huge advantages to later transition, easier to "fit in", and greatly reduced trauma/risk of suicide. But there is that small percentage of transgender children who seem to "grow out of it" (or however that should be phrased) in adolescence. But since the blockers need to begin before adolescence, there's really no way to tell which group your particular child falls in.
But the great thing here is that the blockers, unlike surgery, are only temporary. Once you stop taking them, puberty takes over.
. Yes. That was my main point in the paragraph immediately prior to the one you quoted
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes. That was my main point in the paragraph immediately prior to the one you quoted
Yes. But in my defense you strung so many "but"s in a row it was hard to figure out what was secondary to what.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
All of this is clouded by the seeming explosion in the number of children (predominantly girls) who are coming forward saying they wish to change gender.
Do you have stats to back up your "predominantly girls" claim? All the trans people I know/have known are trans women. The youngest is on the cusp of having to make a decision about puberty blockers; the oldest was the ex-army rugby-refereeing bursar at my school until a letter came one summer to let us know that Mr X would henceforth be known as Ms X. She continued as bursar until retirement (a couple of years or so) but I don't think she continued to referee rugby matches.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The in-betweeners, such as Eutychus' apparent position, are trying to bridge the gap between dealing with what the world is and their interpretation of the world should be.
I'm not sure I agree with that. The world is what it is. My position, along with the DSM-5, is that not everyone with gender nonconformity suffers from gender dysphoria.
If a person experiences the former and not the latter, other things being equal there's nothing to discuss.
If a person is diagnosed with the latter and accepts the diagnosis, whatever we think about "brokenness", it means that a disorder has been recognised. The question then is how, if at all, one attempts to restore some sort of order, working on the Hippocratic principle of "first do no harm".
My view is that for sufferers, a full gamut of therapeutic responses should be envisaged, from reassignment surgery through to therapy for a person to be on better terms with the body they have, with their best interests at heart either way. My feeling is that the latter end of this gamut of responses is being neglected here.
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
Given so many gender differences are based on stereotypes that don't hold true for many people which aspects of being a man or a woman typically feel wrong to transgender people? The idea of being the wrong gender seems to make sense within a very traditional view where men and women are very different beings (men fancy women and do male things, and boys like blue and fighting, women fancy men and do female things and girls like pink and nurturing). In a world where men and women are fairly interchangable except for a few obvious physical differences and gender is seen as more as a social construct what does being the wrong gender mean?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Given so many gender differences are based on stereotypes that don't hold true for many people which aspects of being a man or a woman typically feel wrong to transgender people? The idea of being the wrong gender seems to make sense within a very traditional view where men and women are very different beings (men fancy women and do male things, and boys like blue and fighting, women fancy men and do female things and girls like pink and nurturing). In a world where men and women are fairly interchangable except for a few obvious physical differences and gender is seen as more as a social construct what does being the wrong gender mean?
I think this is a good point. The issues tend to be merged together, but it strikes me that quite a lot of this is about socially constructed norms. I don't think necessarily a debate about the best medical treatment for someone with an issue which is very clearly real for them is the same as one about the clothing boys/girls should wear in school.
I'd also note that there are some difficult issues which whirl around these discussions. Radical feminists (who, let's be fair, are not usually on the same page as Evangelicals either) complain that somehow their "femaleness" is being eroded by allowing anyone to define themselves as a woman.
To which a trans-activist might shrug and say who cares what they think. But then it does become more complicated when a male person who has done nothing else than change his appearance and state that he is now a woman demands entry to "safe" spaces for women.
I don't know how to resolve this, but it does seem to me to be true that some women are genuinely fearful that predatory men will attack them under the guise of being trans.
Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on
:
In reading through this discussion, no one seems to have talked to, met with, or engaged with trans people. How sad. You nee to hear their voices before you spout.
As to wearing different clothes. This is silly: in Scotland men wear kilts, in many countries women wear trousers. What's wrong with that!
Young children experiment with all sorts of things, who they are, what the want to be - anyone with basic child development training will explain that to you. It doesn't mean anything about sex being changed or set. That is a biased adult putting their opinions onto what a child does. Have they talked to the kids? I used to love playing cowboys with the boys! Not to mention climbing and falling out of trees. So what! I'm definetley a woman. It didn't mean I was trans because I played with boys and dressed in trousers with a cowboy hat! How silly to suggest otherwise. This has more to do with adults putting their prejudices onto children rather than children themselves.
Some have mentioned already, you can't just go and demand a sex change. It takes years of counselling and usually is not done until puberty. (I can't speak for rogue private surgeons.) For the real trans people, it is not a simply a lifestyle choice. It's often a matter of life and death and serious thinking and heart searching before that decision is reached.
How do I know?
In my youth group, one girl went through devastating anorexia which meant having to be hospitalised in a special unit, many miles from home. She was unhappy with her developing woman's body. She felt that she had been born in the wrong body. It wasn't a whim. This had gone on for many, many years, since she had been samll. Many years of tears, self harm and even suicide attempts. Eventually, aged 16, she changed her name to a non-gender specific. She was a strong Christian and had done a lot of thinking and praying, often asking, "Why has God made me a girl?" She went through counselling from the NHS. It took more than a year to get an appointment. So dad paid for a private counsellor, actually a Christian but not someone from a strong evangelical stand point. She was told there would be no gender re-alignment surgery until after 18 on the NHS. So don't listen to gossip. Trans people often spend many, many years conflicted and in mental pain.
I also got to know a lady who had been a man, had been married, and like the teenager had tried to commit suicide many times. Being a Christian, since a youngster and coming from a string Christian evangelical family, he was convinced that what he was feeling was wrong and sought evangelical couselling. That made matters much worse. In the end he got help from a non-Christian group, along with his wife. Most of the family accepted his problem and the solution (although not all).
He had to leave the church he was in when he started to transition, because they couldn't accept him as a her. In the wilderness but still with a strong faith, she eventually found a church that accepted her. Not the kind of church one would expect - evangelical. The family are happy. He lives as a second parent and his wife accepts him as a friend, relative and confidant.
It wasn't so far back that Christians thought that people with physical disabilities had been punished by God. Even until relatively recently mental illness was a stigma - God's punishment for the sins of the fathers or the person's own sins. A hundred or so years ago, myself or my husband might have been blamed for the disability our son has.
Our bodies are complex. Our minds are even more complex. Genetics are much more complex still. We are learning how wonderfully and diversely God has created people. We don't know it all yet. God is greater than our tiny minds and attitudes. We don't know the half of it. In the 1st & 2nd centuries, when the NT was written, they knew very little about our bodies and how they develop and are formed. Eve women had to be housebound during their period How we have changed in that are.
Jesus taught us to accept people. Let's do that. The Bible clearly says that God is the judge. Not us!
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
In reading through this discussion, no one seems to have talked to, met with, or engaged with trans people. How sad. You nee to hear their voices before you spout.
You haven't read the thread very well then.
For my part, ChristinaMarie, formerly of these boards, has been one of the most significant influences ever from the Ship for me.
[ 14. November 2017, 11:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
So are men and women fundamentally different in a way that goes beyond the obvious physical differences and if so how? This conversation makes me wonder how instrinsic is male and femaleness to who we are vs us being just humans who happen to have male or female bodies?
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Wild Haggis quote:
Jesus taught us to accept people. Let's do that. The Bible clearly says that God is the judge. Not us!
Thank you so much for your informed post, Wild Haggis, and its conclusion. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I am continually astounded that individuals who have been cruelly excluded from the church still cling to their faith. “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” (Acts 10:15).
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
All of this is clouded by the seeming explosion in the number of children (predominantly girls) who are coming forward saying they wish to change gender.
Do you have stats to back up your "predominantly girls" claim? All the trans people I know/have known are trans women. The youngest is on the cusp of having to make a decision about puberty blockers; the oldest was the ex-army rugby-refereeing bursar at my school until a letter came one summer to let us know that Mr X would henceforth be known as Ms X. She continued as bursar until retirement (a couple of years or so) but I don't think she continued to referee rugby matches.
The times I've visited PFLAG, the trans people there have run about 4:1 in favor of trans women. Anecdotal, I know.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
So are men and women fundamentally different in a way that goes beyond the obvious physical differences and if so how? This conversation makes me wonder how instrinsic is male and femaleness to who we are vs us being just humans who happen to have male or female bodies?
I don't think there are clear answers to those questions. We could say that sex/gender and sexuality are connected with biology, social factors and individual psychological factors, but how these all connect together is unclear. And there is an obvious spectrum of views, ranging from essentialism, which argues that male and female are, well, essential or innate, to the social construction idea, that gender is a construct.
I don't think it makes much difference to the treatment of transpeople. If somebody is deeply unhappy with their ascribed sex/gender, it seems right and proper that they are offered some kind of counselling in the first place, and perhaps after that, some kind of treatment.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Green Mario quote:
So are men and women fundamentally different in a way that goes beyond the obvious physical differences and if so how? This conversation makes me wonder how instrinsic is male and femaleness to who we are vs us being just humans who happen to have male or female bodies?
Mario, that’s a very difficult question to answer in an objective manner, isn’t it, because it’s difficult to separate the influence of nature over nurture in human behaviour, and the debate treads on numerous ideological toes: in this case the extent to which maleness or femaleness influences bias towards predominantly masculine or feminine behaviour. Is it possible to be male as to sex but feminine as to gender, female as to sex but masculine as to gender? Conceptually, I think it is, but transgendered individuals suggest it is psychologically difficult to accept and endure.
Empirically, ISTM that gender identity and behaviour is influenced by genetic factors, especially, as one would expect, in matters relating to sexual reproduction, and if one regards this as important then clearly the physical differences between males and females and their biological roles in the creation, gestation, and nurturing of the new-born are likely to be reflected in the gender development of an individual. Recently, I have been observing a group of women, a number of whom have recently become grandmothers. Where possible they bring their grandchildren to show them off or show their images on their i-phones, and disappear for extended period to visit them if living elsewhere. I find it very difficult to believe that such behaviour is simply a function of culture and gender differentiation. None of this is to deny a close bond between a father and children, but I would need some persuading that it is the same and suggest that the difference is in part a function of genetic structure. On a theological note, I doubt that a male theologian could have written in the manner of Julian of Norwich,* and am of the opinion that the historical absence of female theologians has limited insights into the nature of the God in whose likeness males and females were created.
The genetic difference between males and females regarding reproduction, however, does not mean that other aspects of human behaviour have to be as sharply delineated in gender terms i.e. seen as a likely or necessary consequence of one being male or female, especially where physical strength is an unimportant factor- though I am aware that females of my own generation are often stronger than myself. In other words, in much of human activity male and female roles are essentially a function of culture or nurture and not of the presence or otherwise of the Y chromosome.
*“Our Saviour is our true Mother in whom we are endlessly born and out of whom we shall never come.”
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quetzalcoatl wrote: quote:
And there is an obvious spectrum of views, ranging from essentialism, which argues that male and female are, well, essential or innate, to the social construction idea, that gender is a construct.
It's entirely possible to believe both those things without suffering any cognitive dissonance, what with sex 'n' gender being two different things.
OK, I only really posted that to draw attention to the importance of definitions in all this. I think some of the more recent posts have allowed the concepts of gender identity and gender roles to get a bit confused.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
quote:
OK, I only really posted that to draw attention to the importance of definitions in all this. I think some of the more recent posts have allowed the concepts of gender identity and gender roles to get a bit confused.
I couldn't agree more, but the definition you seek to defend has been under ideological threat for some time. In some countries on official forms the box entitled Gender offers the choice Male or Female. What do you make of that?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quetzalcoatl wrote: quote:
And there is an obvious spectrum of views, ranging from essentialism, which argues that male and female are, well, essential or innate, to the social construction idea, that gender is a construct.
It's entirely possible to believe both those things without suffering any cognitive dissonance, what with sex 'n' gender being two different things.
OK, I only really posted that to draw attention to the importance of definitions in all this. I think some of the more recent posts have allowed the concepts of gender identity and gender roles to get a bit confused.
You are right. The term 'gender' has become very fuzzy, since it used to mean cultural attributes, hence masculine/feminine, but began to be used as synonymous with sex identity, hence male/female.
I used to get stroppy about this, but have given up bothering. Also, it struck me that the actual fuzziness of 'gender' as a term, may indicate the fuzziness of sex, gender, and sexuality. Is a drag queen just imitating gender traits, or traits of sex identity? Well, it's not either/or, as you say.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Kwesi - quote:
I couldn't agree more, but the definition you seek to defend has been under ideological threat for some time. In some countries on official forms the box entitled Gender offers the choice Male or Female. What do you make of that?
Depends how stroppy I'm feeling! It may just indicate a prissy reluctance to use the word "sex" (which my dictionary suggests has been around for a long time). Others may have an ideological agenda to run the two together.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
quetzalcoatl quote:
I used to get stroppy about this, but have given up bothering. Also, it struck me that the actual fuzziness of 'gender' as a term, may indicate the fuzziness of sex, gender, and sexuality.
Quetzalcoatl, I’m sorry you have ‘given up bothering’ about insisting on the distinction between sex and gender because, as you know, they are two different things. Moreover, recognising the distinction is essential if we are to have a rational debate. It is not a question of grammatical pedantry but one of analytical and rational necessity if we are to sort out and understand the fuzziness that has been noted. Indeed, to my mind much of the fuzziness has been occasioned by the elimination of the distinction.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I was interested to note the other day the Daily Mail piece about 'boys wearing tiaras', following the C of E suggestion that young children be allowed to dress as they wish, e.g. boys in skirts.
I say interesting, because it shows that the right wing get outraged very easily by diversity in relation to sex and gender.
So I wonder if right wing evangelicals are transphobic because they are right wing, rather than evangelical. I suppose that left wing evangelicals are not as transphobic.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
No it doesn't. There's a difference between helping people through identity issues they already have on the one hand (good), and offering them identity alternatives they'd never envisaged and which they may see, mistakenly, as a solution to an entirely separate issue (ethically dubious).
‘Offering Identity alternatives’
I don’t even know what that means. People don’t need to be offered anything to know that they don’t feel as they have been expected to feel.
I realize Eutychus has clarified what he means here - but when I first read what he said, I assumed it meant 'these offer alternate ways of being that have hitherto been unknown' - which is the tack that I've seen some authors elsewhere adopt.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quetzalcoatl wrote: quote:
I say interesting, because it shows that the right wing get outraged very easily by diversity in relation to sex and gender.
So I wonder if right wing evangelicals are transphobic because they are right wing, rather than evangelical. I suppose that left wing evangelicals are not as transphobic.
Maybe. But I suspect a main dividing line is the type of evangelical. Our curate is an open evangelical. I have actually talked (more in passing) about this subject. Whilst it was several months ago, he was very much sympathetic towards transgender people and I imagine must be gnashing his teeth at these most recent outpourings. I don't actually know where to put him on the left-right political axis, but I'd guess centreish-right.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was interested to note the other day the Daily Mail piece about 'boys wearing tiaras', following the C of E suggestion that young children be allowed to dress as they wish, e.g. boys in skirts.
I say interesting, because it shows that the right wing get outraged very easily by diversity in relation to sex and gender.
I addressed this above, but if you actually read what the report said it was:
"In the early years context and throughout primary school, play should be a hallmark of creative exploration. Pupils need to be able to play with the many cloaks of identity (sometimes quite literally with the dressing up box). Children should be at liberty to explore the possibilities of who they might be without judgement or derision. For example, a child may choose the tutu, princess’s tiara and heels and/or the firefighter’s helmet, tool belt and superhero cloak without expectation or comment. Childhood has a sacred space for creative self-imagining."
Which seems to be relatively uncontroversial as a recommendation within the context of early years education generally.
It only gains potential controversy because of the subject of the rest of the report, to which some have a visceral reaction.
[ 14. November 2017, 16:24: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
quetzalcoatl quote:
So I wonder if right wing evangelicals are transphobic because they are right wing, rather than evangelical. I suppose that left wing evangelicals are not as transphobic.
I suspect their right wing evangelicalism and transphobia are the expression of a common root rather than causal one of the other either way. Central to this sort of conservatism is a deep fear of change, and a desire for certainty leading to an adherence to traditional values (however non-traditional they might actually be). Transphobia becomes associated with conservative evangelicalism because its just another unsettling phenomenon that is difficult for its adherents’ minds to handle, and for whom opposition is the easiest response. I don’t think religion has much to do with it. The problem for left wing evangelicals, I guess, lies in knowing what is the correct progressive stance to take on the matter. My problem is trying to sort out what the issues are about which I’m supposed to have a view, apart from having a general live and let live approach to such matters.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If somebody is deeply unhappy with their ascribed sex/gender, it seems right and proper that they are offered some kind of counselling in the first place, and perhaps after that, some kind of treatment.
Yes. And as long as that stays firmly within a medical paradigm - an individual needing expert help to resolve a disorder - then why should anyone object ? If for some people healing involves psychological work to reconcile their thinking with their biology, and for some people healing involves surgery to change their biology to match their thinking, then as long as there are sound medical grounds for going one way rather than the other...
The issues cliffdweller is raising are to do with children - people deemed by society too immature to be able to make and be held to legal commitments. Which is another grey area that people feel strongly about.
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on
:
To quetzalcoatl & chris stiles, re the C of E report about combating homo-, trans- etc phobia in primary education:
The Report is balanced and good stuff. The press – Mail, etc, but also, to my appallment, the Guardian, highlighted as a headline the idea that little boys might wear tutus / tiaras – and not the idea that little girls might wear superhero cloaks or firefighter helmets or whatever. Which surely reflects the fact that for mascs to adopt traits conventionally identified as fem is culturally far more subversive than for fems to adopt traits identified as masc.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
The Report is balanced and good stuff. The press – Mail, etc, but also, to my appallment, the Guardian, highlighted as a headline the idea that little boys might wear tutus / tiaras – and not the idea that little girls might wear superhero cloaks or firefighter helmets or whatever.
Yes, I could understand why they included it in that particular report, but in isolation it was relatively uncontroversial (to me) advice on not being overly prescriptive in policing the behavior of very young children. The paragraph afterwards went on to say:
"Children should be afforded freedom from the expectation of permanence. They are in a ‘trying on’ stage of life, and not yet adult and so no labels need to be fixed. This should inform the language teachers use when they comment, praise or give instructions. It may be best to avoid labels and assumptions which deem children’s behaviour irregular, abnormal or problematic just because it does not conform to gender stereotypes or today’s play preferences."
Which seemed in totality to amount to "Don't make gender/sexuality assumptions based on little Jimmy wanting to be Anna from Frozen on Monday"
The entire report is here:
https://www.churchofengland.org/media/4043522/ce-vagc-report-dl-v6-web.pdf
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
I reread the Anglican baptismal covenant and one vows state:
"Will you seek to serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbour as yourself?"
This evening as I was reflecting on Australia's recent vote, I pondered that the covenant I say every time I renew my baptism does not ask me to obey a literalist reading of the Bible, nor does it ask me to uphold specific gender norms or traditional family values.
No, it asks me to serve the Christ in all persons, and that includes Christ in the transgender person.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
As Philip Pullman puts it in 'Northern Lights', everyone has a daemon which only settles permanently into one particular creature when maturity is reached. Perhaps all the people who are phobic about differences in people should be made to read that as it seems to shed some light on the situation in a nonconfrontational way .. but I really don't know.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
To quetzalcoatl & chris stiles, re the C of E report about combating homo-, trans- etc phobia in primary education:
The Report is balanced and good stuff. The press – Mail, etc, but also, to my appallment, the Guardian, highlighted as a headline the idea that little boys might wear tutus / tiaras – and not the idea that little girls might wear superhero cloaks or firefighter helmets or whatever. Which surely reflects the fact that for mascs to adopt traits conventionally identified as fem is culturally far more subversive than for fems to adopt traits identified as masc.
Yes, this has often been picked up in gender studies, and some theorists have speculated that masculinity is a precarious achievement, and must be shored up. However, one can also argue that the patriarchal set-up is being shored up.
I was watching 'Howards End' on telly, and Forster is a very sensitive observer of this stuff, and in that novel, there is a family made up of alpha males (Wilcoxes), who basically collapse during the novel. One son ends up in prison, and the top alpha male (Henry), goes to pieces, and has to be rescued by his wife.
But then Forster himself was marginalized in Edwardian society, (being gay), and I suppose this gave him a sideways on view of masculinity. There is an old saying, 'masculinity in crisis'? - no, masculinity is a crisis.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If somebody is deeply unhappy with their ascribed sex/gender, it seems right and proper that they are offered some kind of counselling in the first place, and perhaps after that, some kind of treatment.
Yes. And as long as that stays firmly within a medical paradigm - an individual needing expert help to resolve a disorder - then why should anyone object ? If for some people healing involves psychological work to reconcile their thinking with their biology, and for some people healing involves surgery to change their biology to match their thinking, then as long as there are sound medical grounds for going one way rather than the other...
The issues cliffdweller is raising are to do with children - people deemed by society too immature to be able to make and be held to legal commitments. Which is another grey area that people feel strongly about.
I think there are also often sound human reasons to help someone, i.e. that they are feeling desperate, and at their wit's end. Of course, psychiatrists will get involved often, but you can't just cite 'medical paradigm' as something sui generis. It devolves from the human and humane requirement to help suffering, which many transpeople seem to experience.
Calling it a disorder is also tendentious, and begs a number of questions. As Laing used to say, the disorder is in us, who judge.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I suppose you could compare masculinity with capitalism in that both go through regular crises - or perhaps as you say are a crisis.
But that surely is a feature. Any system involving power, intellectual as well as all the rest, is going to be a survival-of-the-fittest sort of thing, where top dogs frequently do not relinquish the top position gracefully. What usually gets misinterpreted is that crises are not evidence of collapse, but of movement to some new meta-stable form. Stasis would be like too much rigidity in aircraft wing design - it would be unable to absorb shocks and fail catastrophically.
The focus on "boys and tutus/tiaras" was pretty universal, wasn't it? I did a Google on it yesterday and it all looked to be a variant on that. Of course, current journalism is all cut-and-paste, but even so it's amazing the resonance it still carries. Just thinking back though, I'm pretty sure there was a time when the female equivalent would also have been commented on similarly. At least I think there has been some positive movement there.
On the subject of masculinity - should we not be talking about masculinities? I live in pretty Conservative part of England, but know of precisely nobody who would give any time of day to the sort of toxic masculinities emerging from the internet culture wars. That's a whole world of pain on its own.
I don't want to major on just masculunity/ies either. I've got two daughters who would both regard the whole girly tutus and tiaras thing as evidence of a toxic femininity. But I'd rather hear from female shipmates on that sort of thing.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Good points about crises. Yes, patriarchy and masculinity and capitalism are very resilient, and go through crises, revolutions, apparent inversions, but they survive! Many people have commented on how gay culture has been appropriated by capitalism, which can gobble anything up and spit it out, for a profit.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I was thinking about femininities in relation to Howards End again, and there is a whole gamut in that novel, ranging from ultra-respectable to the Schlegels, who are blue stockings, and therefore, fairly intellectual, free thinking, but somewhat airy-fairy. There is also some Forster snobbery about lower class females who are immoral or silly.
But the blue stockings seem to require a good dose of heavy Edwardian masculine 'grip', in order to ground them.
I was thinking of Forster's long relationship with a policeman and his wife, however, drifting o/t.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Is now a good moment to bring to shippies' attention that Vaughan Roberts, Rector of St Ebbe's in Oxford, is one of the initial signatories of the Nashville Statement, a long and rambling screed issued under the banner of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Articles 10 and 13 of this nonsense state quote:
X We affirm that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.
XIII We affirm that the grace of God in Christ enables sinners to forsake transgender self-conceptions and by divine forbearance to accept the God-ordained link between one's biological sex and one's self-conception as male or female.
Where to start?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Is now a good moment to bring to shippies' attention that Vaughan Roberts, Rector of St Ebbe's in Oxford, is one of the initial signatories of the Nashville Statement, a long and rambling screed issued under the banner of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
I think we already had a thread on the Nashville statement - or it got rolled into the thread on Trump. The statement was characteristic of a lot of the thinking pointed to by articles linked on this thread - and adopted a kind of genital essentialism (for want of a better term).
A couple of minor points of interest that are not necessarily connected; Roberts himself has admitted in the past to struggling with same sex attraction; Voddie Baucham's (CBMW) teaching on courtship are just plain weird and CBMW related theologians have since been seen to push a kind of Subordinationist heresy.
[ 15. November 2017, 16:26: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I reread the Anglican baptismal covenant and one vows state:
"Will you seek to serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbour as yourself?"
This evening as I was reflecting on Australia's recent vote, I pondered that the covenant I say every time I renew my baptism does not ask me to obey a literalist reading of the Bible, nor does it ask me to uphold specific gender norms or traditional family values.
No, it asks me to serve the Christ in all persons, and that includes Christ in the transgender person.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think we already had a thread on the Nashville statement
It's still open, if anyone wants it.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Is now a good moment to bring to shippies' attention that Vaughan Roberts, Rector of St Ebbe's in Oxford, is one of the initial signatories of the Nashville Statement, a long and rambling screed issued under the banner of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Articles 10 and 13 of this nonsense state quote:
X We affirm that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.
XIII We affirm that the grace of God in Christ enables sinners to forsake transgender self-conceptions and by divine forbearance to accept the God-ordained link between one's biological sex and one's self-conception as male or female.
Where to start?
I think we had a thread on it when it first came out, probably in hell-- because, yes, "where to start?" is spot on. Shall I begin with the transphobia, or the misogyny, or the homophobia? Or shall I address the underlying authoritarianism that doesn't even bother to throw a few clobber verses in to shore up their claims, but threatens anyone who doesn't agree with these self-appointed prophets of God with damnation? Where to start... where to start...
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
[ 15. November 2017, 16:46: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I was reflecting on this and thinking how strange it would be if similar statements were written about other things:
We affirm that it is sinful to approve of cancer and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.
We affirm that the grace of God in Christ enables sinners to forsake blindness and by divine forbearance to accept the God-ordained link between one's eyesight and one's self-conception as seeing or not seeing.
[ 15. November 2017, 16:49: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Ambivalence (# 16165) on
:
I'm a transwoman.
I've been receiving treatment for about three years now, and recently went through the legal process of changing my name.
I'd like to echo what has already been said: this is not something we choose to do lightly. It is difficult and involved and expensive (even in the UK, NHS funding does not necessarily cover all aspects of transition.) We expose ourselves to the potential of all manner of unpleasantness. It's not an easy thing.
As to the perils of essentialism, of reducing masculinity or femininity to a stereotype to aim for: yes, we know. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
We talk about it. There are as many answers to the question of "what does it mean to feel you are whatever gender" as there are people, but perhaps my answer would be that gender identity is not a thing to be measured as a single simple thing, but as the sum of everything we are. It's nonsensical to point to particular aspects and label them as one thing or another, but *en bloc* we can see trends. It's a difficult question.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
XIII We affirm that the grace of God in Christ enables sinners to forsake transgender self-conceptions and by divine forbearance to accept the God-ordained link between one's biological sex and one's self-conception as male or female.
Golly is that in the Bible? I missed it somehow.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
XIII We affirm that the grace of God in Christ enables sinners to forsake transgender self-conceptions and by divine forbearance to accept the God-ordained link between one's biological sex and one's self-conception as male or female.
Golly is that in the Bible? I missed it somehow.
Yeah, that one statement alone is one of those "where to start?" clauses.
Do we start with the ignorant science-denying aspect of it?
Or do we start with the willful lack of compassion, advocating therapies that have been proven not just ineffectual, but provent to be harmful?
Or do we, as you imply, begin with the blasphemous assumption that their own opinions bear the same weight and authority as Scripture?
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
XIII We affirm that the grace of God in Christ enables sinners to forsake transgender self-conceptions and by divine forbearance to accept the God-ordained link between one's biological sex and one's self-conception as male or female.
This is just load of ignorant crap. That's it.
.... but at the same time deeply prejudicial, hurtful, and utterly devoid of the Grace it purports to offer, which is just about what one would expect from the place with which it is associated and the Redneck 'Christianity' it propagates. How about a mission to the bible belt- and St Ebbs, of course? Even a crusade against heresy.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
I think that part of the problem for evangelicals in addressing sexuality lies in deciding why individuals are designated gay etc. Is one’s sexuality defined by what one is or by what one does? Is God offended by the fact that one is gay or that one engages in gay sexual practices? If the former, then it’s an aspect of Calvinism: one is condemned without choice, chastity is no way out. If it is participating in homosexual acts that God is concerned about, then he does not condemn individuals for being gay but for not being chaste regarding same-sex activity. In this latter case being gay is not a problem for God, however unreasonable he may be about it.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
Ahem, let's try and keep the debate here to transgender without it straying into homosexuality (and thence Dead Horses).
/hosting
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Eutychus quote:
Ahem, let's try and keep the debate here to transgender without it straying into homosexuality (and thence Dead Horses).
Fair point, Eutychus. I should have adapted my observations to transgenderism. I suspect, however, that evangelicals would see the issue as variety of homosexuality, because a transgendered person retains his/her original chromosomes, so that if he/she has sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex to his/her transgendered state it amounts to a gay relationship. Consequently, I would argue, my observations are relevant to this post.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Not necessarily - gender and sexuality are different things. I knew someone who transitioned from female to male - as a teenager when she was struggling with puberty and in real problems. While going through the process she was involved with a male who was considering transitioning from female to male*. In that case they started as cis-gendered and heterosexual, and if they both transitioned, would be trans-gendered and heterosexual.
I am not sure he has transitioned, last we heard he was still cis-gendered and now a well-known drag act, keeping the two identities separate.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Curiosity killed quote:
Not necessarily..gender and sexuality are different things. I knew someone who transitioned from female to male - as a teenager when she was struggling with puberty and in real problems. While going through the process she was involved with a male who was considering transitioning from female to male*. In that case they started as cis-gendered and heterosexual, and if they both transitioned, would be trans-gendered and heterosexual.
I take your point entirely. What is was trying to do was to look at it from the mind-set of the evangelicals. Normally, I would not approach questions of sexuality and gender identity in this way at all.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Not necessarily - gender and sexuality are different things.
But theologically Kwesi is correct in connecting both of them to the central problem in evangelicalism. I would only tweak it to suggest that the problem is not evangelicalism per se (in the strict sense of the now almost irrelevant Bebbington Quad.) but rather with hyper-Calvinism (which has been fully embraced by evangelicalism only in recent years. Thank you, John Piper.)
To Kwesi's point, Calvinism, particularly the rigid 5 point kind, is going to have problem with any sort of natural evil/suffering-- anything where the created order seems less than "good". Human evil-- war, slavery, abuse, whatever-- can be chalked up to rebellion or Satan or whatever, but natural evil is a lot more problematic. There simply isn't a place for natural suffering/evil theologically in hyper-Calvinism, despite the obvious reality that there are millions of "natural" things in our world-- from childhood cancer to horrific natural disasters to the cycle of life-- that are very much "not good". But admitting that means the whole house of cards falls down, and hyper-Calvinists more than anything like order. Really, arguably, IMHO Calvinism (particularly hyper 5 point Calvinism) is about choosing order over beauty, certainty over mystery, precision over wonder.
Hence the heavy element of denial that is present in discussions of really the whole range of LGBTQ+ issues-- especially in the Nashville Statement. The repeated, almost urgent insistence that all of these are chosen behaviors, despite the clear evidence and millions of testimonies to the contrary. The dogged adherence to things like reparative or conversion therapy that have been proven not just ineffective but incredibly dangerous. The elevation of "ex-gays" (look for "ex-trans" coming soon) to Christian celebrity status-- until they inevitably "fall" of course.
In the very recent past I've tried in my small way to urge evangelicalism back to it's Wesleyan roots, to suggest inaugurated eschatology as a way to accept and face the obvious reality that "the way things are" is far, far short of "the way things should be." But in the last year that optimistic goal has been beaten out of me. "Evangelicalism" is doomed-- killed by our own hand. Something new is emerging and evolving and I've decided my time is better spent using whatever influence I have in that yet-unnamed sphere than shouting into the endless suck-hole of wind that is contemporary American evangelicalism.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Thank you for that, cliffdweller. But haven't evangelicals also created a problem in the first place, by designating gays and trans people as 'not good'? I suppose then you get the idea that these things flow from sin. Having said that, presumably other Christians also say this?
But one can step away from that quite easily, by saying that gays and trans people are part of diversity, which is good. The problems that gays and trans have are not because of moral turpitude, but because many societies are so repressed and oppressive, and lack compassion.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Thank you for that, cliffdweller. But haven't evangelicals also created a problem in the first place, by designating gays and trans people as 'not good'? I suppose then you get the idea that these things flow from sin. Having said that, presumably other Christians also say this?
Absolutely.
Not to completely dredge up dead horses, but obviously evangelical assumptions about the "not goodness" of homosexuality comes from a rigid, literalistic interpretation of a few clobber verses.
With transgender, it's a somewhat different path, since it's not addressed directly biblically. Here, as noted above, it's more akin to, say, my granddaughters genetic heart mutation. You have a condition that is innate, that causes suffering, and that can't be blamed on any human action. With a genetic heart defect where there's no way to blame it on human choices, you'll get all sorts of roundabout platitudes about how God is "testing you" or will use you to "demonstrate his glory"-- which, of course, sucks. And most evangelicals know it, which is why mostly they'll just avoid talking about it, and stick to "thoughts and prayers" or, more positively, acts of kindness and assistance (casseroles) while awkwardly avoiding the hard questions.
But with transgender they've been able to take a different path. Rather than awkwardly avoid the hard question, evangelicals will simply deny it is, in fact, an innate condition, deny the evidence and testimony of thousands and just call it a willful choice. Which is far less awkward theologically but of course, doesn't jive with the reality of the situation.
Conveniently, very few evangelicals have any trans friends so that avoids all that unpleasant cognitive dissonance.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It struck me that the theological analysis of trans people is very much after the fact. I mean, that there is a basic hostility to trans (and gays), which strikes me as more to do with being socially conservative, and then there is a kind of theological icing on the cake, although in the case of trans, very little.
I keep meaning to check out right wing atheists, to see if they are also hostile to trans; there are certainly some racists among them.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It struck me that the theological analysis of trans people is very much after the fact. I mean, that there is a basic hostility to trans (and gays), which strikes me as more to do with being socially conservative, and then there is a kind of theological icing on the cake, although in the case of trans, very little.
Yes, I think it's more about being social conservative - apart from anything else, even amongst American conservative evangelicals, Calvinists are in the minority.
Ditto evangelicalism around the world.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It struck me that the theological analysis of trans people is very much after the fact. I mean, that there is a basic hostility to trans (and gays), which strikes me as more to do with being socially conservative, and then there is a kind of theological icing on the cake, although in the case of trans, very little.
Yes, I think it's more about being social conservative - apart from anything else, even amongst American conservative evangelicals, Calvinists are in the minority.
Ditto evangelicalism around the world.
Historically, American evangelicalism has indeed tended more often toward the Wesleyan variety, but that has shifted greatly in the last few years-- just as (perhaps not coincidentally) American evangelicalism has shifted from politically and socially progressive to politically and socially conservative. Calvinists (ranging from 3 point light to full-on hyper 5 point) are currently very much the majority of American evangelicals-- thanks in large part to Piper, with a strong assist from Tim Keller and the noxious Mark Driscoll (making a comeback), and as documented and hyped by star evangelical advocate Christianity Today.
Global evangelicalism is indeed something else altogether, and far too diverse/my exposure too particular for me to guess as to which variety or varieties are most prominent overall.
I would agree with quetzalcoatl that the "theology of LGBTQ", and transgender issues in particular, is very much retroactive-- figure out where you want to get to (avoiding the "ick") and then figure out how to make a biblical case for it. Arguably, I think Calvinism and classical theism in general does that. Perhaps we all do.
[ 16. November 2017, 16:07: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Calvinists (ranging from 3 point light to full-on hyper 5 point) are currently very much the majority of American evangelicals
Do you have figures that would prove this? Among the SBC around 30% would count themselves as Calvinist of some stripe. Most evangelical megachurches and megachurch movements (say affiliated to Willow Creek) would be socially conservative but not Calvinist. Ditto most charismatic/Pentecostal denominations - if we aren't going to count them as evangelical, for the reasons quetzatcoatl mentions:
quote:
I would agree with quetzalcoatl that the "theology of LGBTQ", and transgender issues in particular, is very much retroactive
As for the global comparisons - evangelical/charismatic/pentecostal movements in the developing world would tend to be socially conservative at least when it comes to matters of sexuality.
So blaming Calvinism seems to be an example of retroactive reasoning.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
I'm sorry if the thread has already covered this, but I think the only way conservative Christianity can accept transgender would be in a way similar to government policy in Iran.
In Iran, if you are a transgender woman (what was once called a male-to-female transgender person), you are allowed to live openly and legally as a woman but you can only have your legal documents changed and receive legal sanction to marry a man once you undergo gender confirmation surgery (or sexual reassignment surgery, as it is also called) on both the top half and the bottom half of your body. You can then have your legal documents changed to show that you are a woman and (I believe) can marry a man. If you come out as transgender, you are expected to undergo surgery once you can afford it, and you could face harassment if you do not - furthermore, if you have sex with a man while you are still considered legally to be a man, the legal consequences are severe (as we know from the reports of executions of gays). Once you have transitioned, you are expected by society to be discreet about your past before transitioning.
The situation in Iran, which is a Shiite Theocracy, is largely due to a fatwa issued by former Supreme Leader Khomeini and is not reflective of what transgender people face in the rest of the Islamic world, which is predominantly Sunni. Furthermore, I do not believe there is any accommodation under Iranian law for transgender men.
If conservative Christians were to offer limited acceptance to transgender, it would probably be similar to that offered by the government in Iran, although it may also allow for transgender men. This type of accommodation maintains rigid gender roles and rigid expectations of how male and female bodies should look. Indeed, many laws favored by many religious conservatives (but not all) in the US only extend rights to transgender persons who have undergone surgery and changed their legal documents, including, in the most restrictive laws favored by such religious conservatives, their birth certificate (which is notoriously difficult to change). The transition must be complete and unambiguous in order to correspond to those particular religious conservatives' notions of gender.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Calvinists (ranging from 3 point light to full-on hyper 5 point) are currently very much the majority of American evangelicals
Do you have figures that would prove this? Among the SBC around 30% would count themselves as Calvinist of some stripe. Most evangelical megachurches and megachurch movements (say affiliated to Willow Creek) would be socially conservative but not Calvinist. Ditto most charismatic/Pentecostal denominations - if we aren't going to count them as evangelical, for the reasons quetzatcoatl mentions:.
I would count all of those groups you just mentioned as both evangelical and mostly Calvinist, of the 3, 4, or 5 point variety. Perhaps you are equating Calvinist with Reformed? I am not. Most Reformed Christians are Calvinists, but not all Calvinists are Reformed.
The above is from my affiliations with prominent American evangelical associations and membership in Pentecostal denominations, but The NY Times agrees with me.
[ 17. November 2017, 02:41: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
otoh, this article from Religious News Service-- half news piece, half op-ed-- cites a follow up study by Barna that suggests more of a dead heat between Wesleyan and Calvinist evangelicals, with Calvinists have a slight edge and most of the megaphone. It goes on to list several problematic trends in the so-called Calvinist revival, all of which I would very much agree with (not surprisingly) and point to as the canary-in-the mine (it's from 2014) for what we're now seeing.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Though I'm inclined to agree that social conservatism mostly precedes biblical support for a particular social attitude, I think that Calvinism reinforces tendencies against social inclusiveness due to its doctrine of election. Arminian and more universalist theologies are more biased towards a toleration of difference.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
When I was reading old Archie comics when I was about eight, I came across a 1960s comic where Ms.Grundy spoke critically about the horror of women wearing pants.
Now of course, I don't know anyone, at least not in public, who objects to women wearing pants.
There may be a misconception that it is only recently when gender norms have been questioned. Untrue, gender norms, have always been challenged, the only difference may be that nowadays, people who have questioned gender norms are less likely to be silenced or stigmatized.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Though I'm inclined to agree that social conservatism mostly precedes biblical support for a particular social attitude, I think that Calvinism reinforces tendencies against social inclusiveness due to its doctrine of election. Arminian and more universalist theologies are more biased towards a toleration of difference.
Once you've accepted the injustice of being condemned for sins you were doomed to commit because you're utterly depraved and accepted the injustice of being unable to repent because you're not on the saved list, accepting injustice because God Says So is easy.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would count all of those groups you just mentioned as both evangelical and mostly Calvinist, of the 3, 4, or 5 point variety. Perhaps you are equating Calvinist with Reformed?
I am not.
I am aware of the difference. I do not see any evidence either externally or from the two links you posted that suggest that the evangelicals, Pentecostals and charismatics are 'mostly calvinist'. The latter two groups tend to come out of a Wesleyan tradition - and the largest denominations are all Arminian.
quote:
in Pentecostal denominations, but The NY Times agrees with me.
Can you quote specifics for where it agrees with the above ? From the article you posted:
"In a 2012 poll of 1,066 Southern Baptist pastors conducted by LifeWay Research, a nonprofit group associated with the Southern Baptist Convention, 30 percent considered their churches Calvinist — while twice as many were concerned “about the impact of Calvinism.”"
That Barna poll you cite, from the article you quote:
"According to a 2010 Barna poll, roughly three out of 10 Protestant leaders describe their church as “Calvinist or Reformed,” a proportion statistically unchanged from a decade earlier. According to the research group, “there is no discernible evidence from this research that there is a Reformed shift among U.S. congregation leaders over the last decade.”"
Which certainly doesn't suggest "more of a dead heat between Wesleyan and Calvinist evangelicals, with Calvinists have a slight edge and most of the megaphone"
And yes, we can come up with just so stories for why Calvinists could be less transgender friendly (and also with why they might be more so), but that's a long way of proving that evangelicals in America (who generally tend to socially conservative anyway) would be more transgender friendly but for the baleful influence of Calvinism. The CBMW statement rests on a particular reading of particular verses, if you change the reading you'd end up with different conclusions (which may even be rendered stronger if you read them through the prism of sovereignty).
[ 17. November 2017, 09:11: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I'm sorry if the thread has already covered this, but I think the only way conservative Christianity can accept transgender would be in a way similar to government policy in Iran.
In Iran, if you are a transgender woman (what was once called a male-to-female transgender person), you are allowed to live openly and legally as a woman but you can only have your legal documents changed and receive legal sanction to marry a man once you undergo gender confirmation surgery (or sexual reassignment surgery, as it is also called) on both the top half and the bottom half of your body. You can then have your legal documents changed to show that you are a woman and (I believe) can marry a man. If you come out as transgender, you are expected to undergo surgery once you can afford it, and you could face harassment if you do not - furthermore, if you have sex with a man while you are still considered legally to be a man, the legal consequences are severe (as we know from the reports of executions of gays). Once you have transitioned, you are expected by society to be discreet about your past before transitioning.
This is interesting, but could evangelicals ever exist in a context where they'd be uniform and powerful enough to control a theocracy as stable as Iran's? Despite the fascination with American evangelical voting strength, I doubt that this would ever be the case in the USA. And I don't know if any research exists as to specific evangelical influence on transgender policies elsewhere.
I think it's probably more relevant to talk about the intersection between conservative evangelicalism and transgenderism on a more congregational level. E.g., if they're not attracted to a very binary understanding of maleness and femaleness, why would a transgender person want to belong to a con-evo congregation? Why would the teachings of some small, strict sect matter?
It occurs to me that the numerical and cultural strength of women in most congregations, including evangelical ones, might (and I only say might) be attractive to some male-female transgender people. Moreover, although churches are patriarchal, they seem to need women more than they need men. Con-evo churches in particular like to control women, but having too many men in that environment, especially (wannabe) alpha males, is perhaps a recipe for conflict....
Out of interest, is there any sign that transgenderism (like homosexuality) is overrepresented in many parts of the church?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Interesting stuff about Iran, but it brings up the issue of gender fluidity. I suppose many conservative people are horrified by the trans phenomenon because it seems to chip away at the apparent solidity of sex/gender, or the claimed black and white nature of them, but gender fluidity sort of abandons them altogether. But I don't know if gender fluid people (or non-binary), seek treatment from various agencies. Well, I've certainly seen people like this in therapy, but they seem less likely to seek psychiatric help.
Interesting quote I remembered from Jacqueline Rose (psychoanalyst), that at the heart of the description of gender identity is the idea that it is always a failure. Actually, it goes beyond that, there is a failure of identity at the heart of psychic life.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This is interesting, but could evangelicals ever exist in a context where they'd be uniform and powerful enough to control a theocracy as stable as Iran's?
...
I think it's probably more relevant to talk about the intersection between conservative evangelicalism and transgenderism on a more congregational level. E.g., if they're not attracted to a very binary understanding of maleness and femaleness, why would a transgender person want to belong to a con-evo congregation? Why would the teachings of some small, strict sect matter?
Out of interest, is there any sign that transgenderism (like homosexuality) is overrepresented in many parts of the church?
The US is not a theocracy, but only 20 out of 50 states have laws protecting transgender people from discrimination in employment, and there is no federal law concerning it either (6 states have laws protecting only transgender public employees, and under Obama the federal government, having no chance of protecting trans rights in Congress, tried to argue in the courts that trans people were protected by existing civil rights laws banning discrimination based on "sex"). The resistance to laws protecting trans rights is backed in large part by conservative Evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics.
I agree that many openly trans people would probably not join a conservative Evangelical church if they were not already members of one before coming out, but they still often have to live under a lack of legal protection from discrimination that is supported by the powerful political efforts of Evangelical Protestants.
As for your last question, I do not have hard data, but I would think that the more progressive denominations, especially those that have openly trans clergy, such as the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and the Episcopal Church - and most of all the Metropolitan Community Churches, which remain primarily a denomination that serves LGBT people - would have more openly trans members than other denominations, and possibly more openly trans people than the public at large (Unitarian Universalists and liberal Quakers also obviously belong on this list, despite their theological differences with the other denominations listed). However, because of the enormous stigma on being trans - which is much stronger still than the stigma on being gay and is even found among gay people at times - it is very hard to know what exactly the prevalence of transgender is in the public at large and how many closeted trans people are in any denomination or congregation, conservative or progressive.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
The Iran position seems positively enlightened and humane conpared with the Nashville Statement. Make of that what you will.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
The problem under discussion here seems to be essentially a political one, not a theological one. Every group is free to make rules for its own members; the problem occurs when the group gains the power to enforce its rules on people who don't want those rules.
AFAIUI certain states in the USA are under political influence from evangelicals due to local demographics. So the way to reduce that influence would be to change the demographics in those places. I wonder if any of the evangelicals' adversaries have considered how they could contribute to that.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The problem under discussion here seems to be essentially a political one, not a theological one. Every group is free to make rules for its own members; the problem occurs when the group gains the power to enforce its rules on people who don't want those rules.
AFAIUI certain states in the USA are under political influence from evangelicals due to local demographics. So the way to reduce that influence would be to change the demographics in those places. I wonder if any of the evangelicals' adversaries have considered how they could contribute to that.
I thought that the evangelicals, well, some of them, were trying to make it theological, viz. that God hates non-binary stuff, and positively glows over binary (rough paraphrase).
I would guess that a trans person in darkest Dorset might well move to London, to meet similar, don't know about the US. The only gay in the village, and so on.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
They're trying, but who cares? It only matters to the rest of us if these people gain political power, or considerable influence. No one cares about what some random Pentecostal group believes about the Trinity, because that only affects themselves.
As for London, the irony is that a transgender person is surely far more likely to meet strict evangelicals there than in Dorset! Religion in Dorset is probably far less dynamic, even though the inhabitants there are less likely to identify as atheists than in London.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
They're trying, but who cares? It only matters to the rest of us if these people gain political power, or considerable influence. No one cares about what some random Pentecostal group believes about the Trinity, because that only affects themselves.
As for London, the irony is that a transgender person is surely far more likely to meet strict evangelicals there than in Dorset! Religion in Dorset is probably far less dynamic, even though the inhabitants there are less likely to identify as atheists than in London.
Well, in the UK, that doesn't seem a danger. Even the Tories seem well-disposed to trans people, that should be, some Tories of course.
However, in the US, the combination of evangelicals and Trump is rather toxic, isn't it? For example, trying to ban them in the military seemed to have evangelical support, plus all the bathroom measures.
[ 17. November 2017, 14:19: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As for London, the irony is that a transgender person is surely far more likely to meet strict evangelicals there than in Dorset! Religion in Dorset is probably far less dynamic, even though the inhabitants there are less likely to identify as atheists than in London.
Um no, really no. I had neighbours in Dorset who attended Father's House, Shaftesbury when it was called the Shaftesbury Christian Centre. Their teenage son was thrashed to get the devil out of him when he didn't follow the family line. I also attended school with a number of Christians who attended the evangelical church in Blandford Forum and struggled through their A level biology teaching on evolution, debating how to answer those questions in their exams.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I did Google first to see what kinds of dynamic churches existed in Dorset, but didn't come across anything in particular.
Still, maybe Dorset's churches need to go through a very boring phase.
[ 17. November 2017, 14:47: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
A side issue, but in third year seminary, I posed the following question
"Regarding the current Roman Catholic understanding that only men can be priests, what happens if a priest decides to go for gender reassignment surgery, does that mean that any masses performed after this surgery are invalid in the eyes of Rome? But presumably the priest may have identified as female before the physical transition, does that mean that she was not validly ordained? But because Rome cannot discern a person's personal gender identity (the church cannot get into someone's head), does that mean that every priestly ordination is potentially at risk for invalidity?"
Sounds positively jesuital ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
But because Rome cannot discern a person's personal gender identity (the church cannot get into someone's head), does that mean that every priestly ordination is potentially at risk for invalidity?"
That raises an interesting question. Stipulating that the experiences reported by trans people are a reflection of the underlying truth, and they really do have a "female mind in a male body", which is the truth - the brain or the body?
As a practical matter, we know how to perform operations to alter someone's physical appearance, but don't know how to alter their perception of their own gender (conversion therapies and the like have been conclusively demonstrated not to work), so in order to make the brain and body match, we only have one choice.
But if you think that priesthood requires maleness (not just as a matter of good order and tradition, but in some kind of essential way that is probably going to involve the word "ontological"), which maleness is required?
An XY body? A penis? Male gender identity?
It is logically consistent to take the line that a man is someone with a male body (and so trans women are "really" men), and in that case, a trans woman would actually be a man, and so would have had a valid ordination. This is basically the view that transgenderism is a mental disorder.
If you take the line that the trans person's experienced gender is what is real, and so a trans woman is really a woman, and probably was really a woman even when she was presenting to the outside world as a man, and was probably really a woman even before she understood that she was trans, then you either take the line that gender is fundamentally unknowable, or that gender can change with time. And both of these get you in the kind of trouble you mention.
I suspect that Rome takes the line that trans women are really men, and so a priest in the position that you describe would, in their view, be a priest who has deliberately mutilated himself. Such a man would render himself unfit for the priesthood, but this wouldn't invalidate any of the priestly functions he has performed. But I can't quite chapter and verse.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Leorning Cniht wrote:
quote:
But if you think that priesthood requires maleness (not just as a matter of good order and tradition, but in some kind of essential way that is probably going to involve the word "ontological"), which maleness is required?
An XY body? A penis? Male gender identity?
Interestingly some of those things were addressed nearly 1700 years ago. Canon 1 of the Ecumenical council of Nicea (325 AD) says:
quote:
If anyone has been operated upon by surgeons for a disease, or has been excised by barbarians, let him remain in the clergy. But if anyone has excised himself when well, he must be dismissed even if he is examined after being in the clergy. And henceforth no such person must be promoted to holy orders. But as is self-evident, though such is the case as regards those who affect the matter and dare to excise themselves, if any persons have been eunuchized by barbarians or their lords, but are otherwise found to be worthy, the Canon admits such persons to the clergy.
The canon specifically addresses the issue of admitting castrated males to the clergy. Of course we cannot map all current concepts onto those of 325. But it will serve to exclude certain understandings such as the need to be in possession of a working penis or testicles.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've heard some conservative Christians object to the transgender thing, in its male to female form at least, on the grounds that many transexual males want to be 'lesbians' ie. they want to have sex with women but not with willies but because they are turned on by the idea of being a woman and having sex with women.
I don't know whether this has any basis in reality, although I know transgender people who were formerly male who have sexual relations with women.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Gamaliel quote:
I've heard some conservative Christians object to the transgender thing, in its male to female form at least, on the grounds that many transexual males want to be 'lesbians' ie. they want to have sex with women but not with willies but because they are turned on by the idea of being a woman and having sex with women.
I don't know whether this has any basis in reality, although I know transgender people who were formerly male who have sexual relations with women
Well, blow me down! Knock we down with a feather! Would you believe it?
Do you know, I know numerous non-gendered individuals who encompass all sorts of sexual activities, some of which are quite disgusting. I don't know whether this is relevant. Thank God I'm normal!
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, in the UK, that doesn't seem a danger. Even the Tories seem well-disposed to trans people, that should be, some Tories of course.
At the political level maybe, at the popular level I don't know, it would probably depend on whether they were leavers or remainers.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've heard some conservative Christians object to the transgender thing, in its male to female form at least, on the grounds that many transexual males want to be 'lesbians' ie. they want to have sex with women but not with willies but because they are turned on by the idea of being a woman and having sex with women.
I don't know whether this has any basis in reality, although I know transgender people who were formerly male who have sexual relations with women.
Much of transphobia comes from a confusion between gender identity and sexual orientation.
My view, is that the church would save itself a lot of headache, if it returns to the basic principles of our faith, if something brings about an increase of love of God and love of neighbor, it is good.
If someone chooses to live according to however they perceive their gender identity, and it brings about a deeper love of self, which can increase love of neighbor and God, then that's the important thing to focus on.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've heard some conservative Christians object to the transgender thing, in its male to female form at least, on the grounds that many transexual males want to be 'lesbians' ie. they want to have sex with women but not with willies but because they are turned on by the idea of being a woman and having sex with women.
I don't know whether this has any basis in reality, although I know transgender people who were formerly male who have sexual relations with women.
I only know one transgender woman. He was married to a Methodist minister and she is still married to her. The minister continues to serve in the Church and took a service at our place recently. They had lunch with church members afterwards and it was a happy, ordinary occasion.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
They're trying, but who cares? It only matters to the rest of us if these people gain political power, or considerable influence. No one cares about what some random Pentecostal group believes about the Trinity, because that only affects themselves.
As for London, the irony is that a transgender person is surely far more likely to meet strict evangelicals there than in Dorset! Religion in Dorset is probably far less dynamic, even though the inhabitants there are less likely to identify as atheists than in London.
Well, in the UK, that doesn't seem a danger. Even the Tories seem well-disposed to trans people, that should be, some Tories of course.
However, in the US, the combination of evangelicals and Trump is rather toxic, isn't it? For example, trying to ban them in the military seemed to have evangelical support, plus all the bathroom measures.
But that's my point; the challenge is that in the US these people have political power over others. If they didn't have this power then no one would care about their theology.
Theology seems irrelevant to most people most of the time. It only becomes relevant or problematic to them when it impinges on their lives.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
only know one transgender woman. He was married to a Methodist minister and she is still married to her. The minister continues to serve in the Church and took a service at our place recently. They had lunch with church members afterwards and it was a happy, ordinary occasion.
Out of interest, I've just read this story about the British Methodist Church's first transgender minister. I'm sure there are several in the CofE and elsewhere.
I suppose I find it unfortunate, and less than honest, that someone would go through some really important stages in life, such as marriage and the ordained ministry, without telling the other people involved that such a big part of their identity wasn't what it seemed.
OTOH, my view is that we shouldn't put the clergy on a pedestal. Now that their lives are reflecting the changes happening in the wider secular society that means the pedestal has to go, little by little.
[ 19. November 2017, 12:42: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
You are labouring under a category error. The error is in imposing an artificial division between politics and theology in this instance. This is a matter of political theology, viz. what the relationship between the ethics and norms of a faith and the society those of the faith find themselves in.
And I suppose you are free to feel as disappointed as you like, without having walked in this minister's shoes.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
If many American evangelicals feel it to be their political duty to impose their theology of family and gender on the non-evangelical population at large then yes, that obviously brings both politics and theology together. But not all evangelicals take that approach. Some of them don't even vote, AFAIUI. At this point in time the USA probably needs more of the latter.
But the clergy don't 'disappoint' me. How can they if I don't put them on a pedestal? Besides which, I'm a Methodist. In Methodism, approving of how the minister lives isn't necessary. The layfolk can be quite critical, but it doesn't seem to matter. Perhaps this is partly because Methodism is lay-led to a considerable degree.
Expectations of the minister's role are also relevant. The pastoral role is of high importance in Methodism, but since theological tolerance and choice in everyday life are more or less taken for granted the minister isn't expected to be a role model for a conservative lifestyle or theological position.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Svitlana you say that in Methodism the pastor is of minimal importance because it is largely lay-led, then in the next sentence say the pastoral role is of high importance.
Which is it?
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
You also say it is "unfortunate" that a clergyperson did not feel safe enough to confide their transgender status for a long time, but you are not disappointed.
Is there a semantic distinction you are making there that only you understand?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Svitlana you say that in Methodism the pastor is of minimal importance because it is largely lay-led, then in the next sentence say the pastoral role is of high importance.
Which is it?
The minister is obviously of importance (and I didn't say otherwise), but not really as a role model, nor as a master of theological precision. Most Methodist sermons aren't even preached by the clergy. However, the pastoral role is significant; members expect the minister above all to provide consolation and comfort when they're in need. I don't see a contradiction there. (A problem, perhaps, but not a contradiction.)
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
You also say it is "unfortunate" that a clergyperson did not feel safe enough to confide their transgender status for a long time, but you are not disappointed.
Is there a semantic distinction you are making there that only you understand?
Do you think those two words mean the same thing? I wouldn't say they do.
It's possible to think a course of action is undesirable, yet not be disappointed by someone who takes it. IMO you can only be disappointed in someone's behaviour if you expected differently of them - i.e., if you expected better. But if you just see them as ordinary people who've made a mistake or treated others in a less than decent way, then where's the disappointment? There's no disappointment if you don't put someone on a pedestal.
We should be resigned to the clergy doing what everyone else does.
[ 20. November 2017, 19:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I was a Methodist for two or three years and the vast majority of sermons I heard were preached by the clergy. Are you sure your experience is normative?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Certainly was the normal practice here for sermons to be given by Methodist clergy - in the days when there were such beasts, but still with Uniting Church. The chaplain at school for Dlet's time was an ex-Methodist, a former naval officer with a muscular Christianity, very popular with the boys.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
There is a well-developed lay-preacher tradition within UK Methodism.
My impression is that things are organised differently within Methodism in the USA and Australia and elsewhere, but here they've stuck to the old-circuit system which means that you get preachers circulating round giving sermons in different places.
Well, it means more than that, but in practice that's what happens.
My brother-in-law and sister-in-law have recently found a home in Methodism on the rebound from heavy-duty full-on charismatic evangelicalism.
They really like it but find some of the sermons very dull and rather like poor after-dinner speeches.
My own experience of Methodist preaching, both by lay-people and clergy persons is quite positive, but then, I've only dipped into it now and again.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There is a well-developed lay-preacher tradition within UK Methodism.
Which I think is partly explained by UK Methodism retaining its institutional constructs even as the pools from which it could fund and recruit full time ministers has collapsed. I've heard very good sermons by lay-preachers, and an equal percentage that have been like the very bad after dinner speeches to which you refer (or like Eddie Izzard's routine on 'Thought for the Day').
Posted by Ambivalence (# 16165) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've heard some conservative Christians object to the transgender thing, in its male to female form at least, on the grounds that many transexual males want to be 'lesbians' ie. they want to have sex with women but not with willies but because they are turned on by the idea of being a woman and having sex with women.
I don't know whether this has any basis in reality, although I know transgender people who were formerly male who have sexual relations with women.
I don't know any transpeople who are "in it for the sex" - you'd have to be pretty daft to imagine that hacking your bits about was likely to lead to an increase in fun times.
(Plus the effect of hormones is unpredictable - from personal experience, my sex drive has gone from "low" to "minimal" with hormone treatment and blockers - and yet I am very much happier than before because, y'know, not about the sex. It can depend on the method of hormone treatment, too. Again, not something you'd bank on leading to fun times.)
But sure, people are people. People like sex. Transpeople like sex. Some people are homosexual or bisexual or whatever. Some transpeople are homosexual or bisexual or whatever.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've heard some conservative Christians object to the transgender thing, in its male to female form at least, on the grounds that many transexual males want to be 'lesbians' ie. they want to have sex with women but not with willies but because they are turned on by the idea of being a woman and having sex with women.
Pure projection.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, I get all that, Ambivalence and Mousethief.
I seem to remember reading some research comments from John Hopkins University which some conservative Christians were citing. It suggested that some fellas were turned on by the idea of becoming 'lesbians' and so went through the transgender thing for that reason, which seems a bit drastic of that's all it was about ...
The transgender folk I know who were fellas are in relationships with women, but I don't know whether that is coin or not - as Ambivalence says, there's probably a range of sexualities involved same as with non-transgender people.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ambivalence and Mousethief.
Sounds like the name of a hipster cocktail bar.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I seem to remember reading some research comments from John Hopkins University which some conservative Christians were citing. It suggested that some fellas were turned on by the idea of becoming 'lesbians' and so went through the transgender thing for that reason, which seems a bit drastic if that's all it was about
Paint me very, very skeptical.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ambivalence and Mousethief.
Sounds like the name of a hipster cocktail bar.
Where people drink Mousethief Coolers™, but ironically.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Since sex, gender and sexual preference are different things, I don't find it a surprise that a transsexual who's attracted to woman will continue to be attracted to women after they've transitioned.
I mean, it would be stranger if they weren't.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
*decloaks*
Well, I got to page 2. It's been interesting, as a trans woman, to read the thread that far but I've run out of resilience and I'll have to do the rest later.
There are a fair number of misconceptions here that I might try to address at some point, but when push comes to shove it was transition or die for me. It's still been a close-run thing. The academic discussion of whether a group of people who suffer attempted suicide rates of 40%+ - in my opinion almost entirely because of societal rejection of our needs - leaves me pretty cold. I'd ask Shipmates to keep that in mind particularly those who think facilitating transition is a bad idea.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I have been trying to tread carefully, but if I haven't succeeded then I apologise, Grey Face.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0