Understanding Gender Dysphoria, page 4
Taken together, what can we conclude from these passages of Scripture? First, let me say that I rarely like to cite a passage as a quick way to respond to a complicated topic. It never seems to do justice to the complexity. I think we do better to look at broader biblical themes that help us develop our thoughts and inform a Christian worldview. At the same time, theology should not be so sophisticated that a person could not come to a basic understanding of God’s will by a reading of his Word. If you are working really hard to make sense of a passage that is relatively clear, it might be that you are looking to justify something rather than really apply the obvious meaning of the text to your present circumstances.
As I read these passages, I find myself unconvinced that they alone provide the final word on the experiences of gender dysphoric persons or persons who are navigating gender identity conflicts. The passages seem to speak to a cultural context in which Israel was to be set apart from the pagan practices of their neighbors.18 At the same time, part of what was being practiced by pagans did seem to push back against a created order in a way that should give the believer pause. It may not be a moral concern in exactly the same way that same-sex sexual behavior is a moral concern, but is there a sense in which cross-dressing for the purposes of deconstructing sex and gender should be a concern to the Christian? I think so, but it is difficult to get much more from isolated passages like these without doing a fair amount of hermeneutical gymnastics to advance an argument on either side of the culture wars. What we do see in Jesus is a way in which he approached and interacted with eunuchs. Those exchanges are not directly related to gender dysphoria (although some expressions of what we refer to as gender variance were likely present during biblical times), in my view, but they do show a compassion that I would like to see characterize the local church.
Also, I appreciate what Looy and Bouma had to say in their reflection on the nature of gender in their analysis of the experiences of intersexed and transgender persons:
Gender is a good and vital aspect of human nature, but it is not all of human nature. Gender also does not reflect a straightforward division of humankind into two subspecies. Both within and transcending gender is much psychological, behavioral, and even physical diversity. . . . Further, . . . sin has distorted both physical experiences and cultural expressions of gender.19
As Looy and Bouma suggest, the experiences of transgender persons “create for all of us a tension between healthy diversity and the distortion of sin, and call us to reflect on how we should understand gender in light of the essential Christian motifs of creation, fall, and redemption.”20
The Four Acts of the Biblical Drama
What I find more informative than some of the specific verses cited above is to think about sexuality and gender in the context of God’s redemptive plan for creation. That redemptive plan is frequently discussed with reference to the four acts of the biblical drama: creation, the fall, redemption and glorification.
Creation. Christians have historically understood the creation story to say something significant about God’s purposes for sex and gender. The creation story presents us with Adam and Eve as delighting in their physical existence as gendered persons. We can affirm the goodness of our physical existence, including what contributes to our experience of our sex (as male and female) and gender.
As we think about extending that observation of the goodness of our physical existence and ourselves as gendered persons, one distinction that may be helpful is to recognize different aspects of our sexuality: gender sexuality, erotic sexuality and genital sexuality.21
Gender sexuality is the broadest of the three levels. It refers to being a person who is either male or female. Christians have historically understood there to be two biological sexes, and gender sexuality is a reflection of that distinction and complementarity seen in the creation narrative (Gen 2:21-24). By saying this, I am in no way meaning to diminish the experience of those who have an intersex condition or experience gender identity concerns, and some would say such rare conditions or experiences are exceptions that perhaps prove the rule, that is, that there are two distinct and complementary sexes, just as we see reflected in the story of creation.
Erotic sexuality and genital sexuality are the other two types of sexuality. Erotic sexuality refers to the passionate desire and longing for completion in another. The longing for completion is experienced at all levels, including the physical. Erotic sexuality is related to gender sexuality for most people.22 The complementarity of male and female anatomy certainly reflects this, but same-sex partners can also experience a longing for completion in the other that reflects this level of erotic sexuality.
Genital sexuality is comprised of and focuses upon physical acts themselves.23 It is probably the focal point of most evangelical Christians when they discuss sex—which behaviors are acceptable and which are unacceptable? What is right and wrong in terms of sexual behavior? These are important questions to ask, of course, but our discussion requires a broader, fuller view of sex and gender to inform a Christian understanding of gender identity concerns.
According to Jones, questions for Christians for reflection include, Why did God created two sexes? What was God’s purpose in so doing? What are the meaningful differences between men and women, if we can tease those out from our sociocultural context? Also, how does our gender permeate our lives as we live after the fall and before glorification? How ought gender permeate our lives?24
The view that “gender enables unity,” that is, that “man and woman become ‘one flesh’” is an important biblical theme from creation that should inform our understanding of redemption.25
We can only speculate as to why God created two sexes. Obviously, God did not have to create the world the way that it is. But God chose to create two sexes. We do see examples throughout the Old and New Testaments that suggest that the coming together as male and female, as a man and a woman in marriage is meant to signal something of the relationship between God and his people (Old Testament) and between Christ and the church (New Testament). This is probably one of the most common themes throughout Scripture and positions God in relation to a community that is being redeemed. The relationship between God and the people of God is an intimate one, a covenantal one, steeped in significance, purpose and meaning.
To be human is also to experience a longing for completion. Did God create us with a longing for completion that forces us to look outside of ourselves so that the longing itself would be illustrative? It may be that the longing for the other that is related to our biological sex and gendered selves—because it is meant to represent a longing for God—was made possible in the creation of two sexes and is not in any way incidental to the creation. The creation of two sexes provides, then, a living illustration of a point intended to direct us toward our Creator.
Christians can make these observations about sex and gender differences without overstating their case, which is often a temptation. It is difficult to tease out the real and meaningful differences between men and women. Neural mapping of the brain suggests differences between males and females that are particularly significant at adolescence and into adulthood: “The observations suggest that male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes.”26
But many differences between men and women are not categorical; rather, they are better viewed as two bell-shaped curves in which the average experiences of men and the average experiences of women are different, while having considerable overlap either in ability or with reference to a characteristic. Indeed, “all of the research on gender differences in various personality traits, cognitive abilities, and preferences consistently shows that, even when there are statistically significant differences between women and men, these differences pale in magnitude beside the variations among women and among men.”27 It is rather artificial to focus on the differences between men and women and may unnecessarily create a false dichotomy through “such narrow definitions of what it is to be female or male that virtually all of us fall short of the ‘ideal’ or the prototype.”28
It is also quite possible that when we look at the question, Why did God create two sexes? we may not be able to look to scientific findings for any definitive answer, and perhaps that is appropriate and significant. The answer may reside in theological anthropology. Christopher Roberts puts it this way: “[Is] the human body theologically significant in its sexual features? . . . If it is, how will these features participate in our redemption? What is the relationship between our bodies, our desires, and our true selves?”29 In his concluding thoughts about the significance of sexual difference, Roberts writes, “[Human] beings are ontologically (and not merely in appearance) male and female, and so their deepest fulfillment will come through forms of life that welcome this difference and are structured upon it.”30
Heather Looy, in offering some tentative considerations about the image of God in her discussion of intersexuality, offers that it is possible that
the “genderfulness” of God [may have been] deliberately separated into female and male by God in the creation of humankind as a way of structuring into creation a basic need for us to be in relationship, so that it is in community, not individually, that we most fully reflect God’s image and are most fully equipped for the tasks to which we are called.31
This is a fascinating consideration, and in my view, it deserves more time and attention. Is it possible that we see in the differences between male and female a separation of what Looy describes as the “genderfulness” of God? Are we created in a way that highlights diversity in our very being and ways of relating to one another as gendered beings? It is certainly a compelling view and vision for our experience of interrelatedness.
For our purposes, we are left with the question, How does gender permeate our lives—and how should it? That is another challenging question for the Christian community. Christians can affirm two different sexes and recognize that we are to relate to one another as gendered selves. However, our gender identity and gender roles are often shaped by our current cultural context, the messages we receive about what it means to be a man or a woman, and the standards by which we frequently compare ourselves. We want to avoid adherence to rigid stereotypes of what it means to be male or female; we want to recognize a range of experiences of our gender and ways of relating as gendered selves through various norms and roles that can be described along a continuum.
The fall. Christians also look at the reality of the fall. It is important to consider that original sin has corrupted all of existence, including human sexuality and experiences of our gendered selves. The consequences of the fall are far-reaching, but we get glimpses into the purpose of sexuality and its complementarity in what God chooses to reveal about his relationship with Israel. Indeed, God reveals a very intimate relationship with his people by equating Israel to a wayward wife who prostitutes herself with others while God is a faithful husband. (Also, in this analogy God is the husband, and in the New Testament Christ is the bridegroom, which places all Christians [no matter our gender] as female in how we as the church relate to God, which can be a little confusing to some men in the church who might not readily identify with this role and way of relating to God.)
As we think about the three aspects of sexuality—gender, erotic and genital sexuality—we see that the fall can affect biological/physical/anatomical sex and gender. Here are a few of the potential effects. I noted previously any number of departures from the norm that can be found in biology, from Klinefelter Syndrome (in which the person has an extra sex chromosome, XXY) to Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (in which a person has external female genitalia and an outward appearance as female but XY male chromosomes). Other experiences include congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), which can have many outcomes but could include XX chromosomes but male external genitalia. CAH is “the result of an enzyme deficiency (most commonly 2 1-hydroxlase) that occurs in both males and females” . . . and “is inherited as an autosomal recessive disorder.”32 These are effects of the fall at the level of the chromosomes, the gonads, and testicular or ovarian tissues, among other things.
An important consideration from the outset, then, is that Christians do not affirm that every experience—that every biological or psychological reality—is a reflection of God’s will.33 No one and nothing is free from the effects of the fall, although the fall touches our lives in remarkably different ways. The world we inhabit, as well as our experience of ourselves (our bodies, our minds) are not as God intended.
If what we experience around us (in the world) and within us (in our bodies and our minds) are not exactly as God intended, how should we think of ourselves? Well, one word that comes to mind is that we are disordered.34 I think this word captures the human condition. However, there are two concerns I have about the word. First, I do not want the word to be used to focus in on certain experiences to the exclusion of our own disorder. In other words, when we speak of being disordered, it should be noted that we share with one another this essential quality; we do not focus on the disorder of the other while overlooking our own disorder before a holy God.
A second concern I have is that the word is likely to create misgivings even among Christians who are also navigating gender identity concerns. Let me draw a parallel to the experiences Christian sexual minorities have. We see an increasing number of gay Christians—even conservative, celibate gay Christians who prefer to use the word gay rather than homosexual or same-sex attracted to capture their experience. In a post in which she reacted to the language of homosexuality being “intrinsically disordered,” Eve Tushnet wrote:
If sexual desire can be easily tweezed away from nonsexual longing and love and adoration then yeah, sure, I guess I can see the point of calling homosexual desire “disordered.” But that’s not how eros actually works! My lesbianism is part of why I form the friendships I form. It’s part of why I volunteer at a pregnancy center. Not because I’m attracted to the women I counsel, but because my connection to other women does have an adoring and erotic component, and I wanted to find a way to express that connection through works of mercy. My lesbianism is part of why I love the authors I love. It’s inextricable from who I am and how I live in the world. Therefore I can’t help but think it’s inextricable from my vocation.35
There is an entire debate about language and identity among conservative Christians about whether gay Christians should refer to themselves as such. I am not going to enter into that debate here. I have discussed my thoughts elsewhere.36 But the challenge exists insofar as gender and gender identity are significant meaning-making structures that inform our sense of self and our way of relating to those around us. We relate to one another and to God and to the world around us as gendered selves. We will have to be thoughtful in how we reference the fall in our understanding of diverse experiences of gender identity that do not match up well with a gender binary. Those who experience their gender identity differently than in more stereotypical roles and expressions likely experience their gender identity as who they are and as a way for them to serve others and to know God.
Having said that, I acknowledge that we are—all of us—disordered. We do not like to think of ourselves as disordered, and this too is a reflection of the fall. The noetic effects of sin are seen in the disorder in our own minds (Rom 1:18-23) and in our knowledge of God and the world God created, including ourselves. O’Donovan puts it this way: “Together with man’s essential involvement in created order and his rebellious discontent with it, we must reckon also upon the opacity and obscurity of that order to the human mind which has rejected the knowledge of its Creator.”37 I think it’s important, then, to realize any discussion of disorder is unlikely to be embraced. It is a hard reality that each of us faces. What will make it harder is if we treat gender dysphoria as disorder while those of us who do not experience gender dysphoria or do not relate to one another outside of a gender binary relate to others as though we are not ourselves disordered.
We usually think of disorder as a word reserved for more extreme conditions or experiences, such as significant depression or anxiety that keeps us from going to work or being present to our kids. We think of disorder perhaps in medical conditions, such as cancer or heart disease. But all of it is disordered. Even the healthiest of us is still living in a fallen world as a fallen person.
The fall will touch our lives in ways that vary significantly from person to person. One person may be susceptible to depression in a way that another person is not (based on family history). Likewise, a person could be at greater risk for heart disease because of family history. My uncle suffered from schizophrenia for over thirty years. He was perhaps at greater risk for it than someone else, but he certainly lived with a debilitating mental health condition that is a reflection of the fall—the world and the way we experience it is not as God originally intended.
How do gender identity concerns fit into this picture of a fallen world?
I think the fall can be seen in the lack of congruence between birth sex and psychological sense of gender identity, particularly when this is strong enough to cause distress and impairment. In those instances (and I recognize it may be difficult to draw any kind of line here), this incongruence may very well be a reflection of our fallen world. But it is not quite that simple. As Looy and Bouma observe, Christians may affirm that sex is dichotomous, but it becomes more complicated when we move to assert that gender identity is also fundamentally dichotomous, that “there is an essential female and male mind and spirit that complement and complete one another.”38 How much of what we think of as essential is acculturation as male or female?
