Understanding Gender Dysphoria, page 6
Evangelical Christians may recognize that the disability framework may be of some limited use, but they will likely have reservations depending on the primacy of the integrity framework. Evangelicals recognize that we live in a fallen world and that every aspect of the created world is touched in some way by the fall, so they can see how gender dysphoria could be one such manifestation. They may recognize the utility of the disability framework insofar as the person has not chosen to experience gender dysphoria, and the disability framework evokes in the Christian a greater sense of compassion and empathy.
The challenges that arise for those who are drawn to the disability framework are twofold. First, proponents of the disability framework may value the sacredness and ontological significance of male and female differences (implied in conceptualizing gender dysphoria as a disability or as aspects of personhood not functioning properly).55 However, the openness to palliative care and interventions that allow for cross-gender identification may not be a sufficient response to adherents of the integrity framework. As Looy points out in her discussion of intersexuality, those who look at these conditions as a reflection of the fall tend to appeal to God’s original intentions for sex and gender in their pastoral care: “While the fall into sin has created distortions in how femaleness and maleness are experienced and expressed, living in the time of grace means that we must seek to redeem gender and sexuality in harmony with God’s intentions.”56 As we saw with our discussion of the integrity framework, such a view adds both “a theological and a moral dimension” to the discussion.57
Second, in so doing, Christians who utilize the disability framework are not where proponents of the diversity framework will want them to be (as I will discuss below). That is, they are still discussing gender dysphoria as a disability, which does little to provide the kind of meaningful identity and community support found in the diversity framework.
The diversity framework. A third way to think about transgender issues is to see them as something to be celebrated, honored or revered. The sociocultural context in which we live in the West is rapidly moving in this direction. I think of this as a diversity framework. The diversity framework highlights transgender issues as reflecting an identity and culture to be celebrated as an expression of diversity. Current models that celebrate a transgender identity and community reflect this framework. This understanding also frequently cites historical examples in which gender variant expressions have been documented and held in higher esteem, such as the Fa’afafine of Samoan Polynesian culture and the Two-Spirit people identified in some Native American tribes.58
Evangelical Christians are understandably wary of the diversity framework. Evangelicals see among those who adhere to the diversity framework a small but vocal group that calls for the deconstruction of norms related to sex and gender. I describe those efforts as a strong form of the diversity framework (as contrasted with a weak form that focuses primarily on identity and community). Judith Butler, for example, represents a strong form of the diversity framework when she blurs distinctions between sex and gender:
Is there a history of how the duality of sex was established, a genealogy that might expose the binary options as a variable construction? Are the ostensibly natural facts of sex discursively produced by various scientific discourses in the service of other political and social interests? If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called “sex” is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all.59
Whereas the biological distinction between male/female had been considered rather immutable, as we can see, there are those who wish to recast sex as just as socially constructed as gender. From another report:
We believe it is indispensable to deconstruct the binary sex/gender system that shapes the Western world so absolutely that in most cases it goes unnoticed. For “other sexualities to be possible” it is indispensable and urgent that we stop governing ourselves by the absurd notion that only two possible body types exist, male and female, with only two genders inextricably linked to them, man and woman. We make trans and intersex issues our priority because their presence, activism and theoretical contributions show us the path to a new paradigm that will allow as many bodies, sexualities and identities to exist as those living in this world might wish to have, with each one of them respected, desired, celebrated.60
The concern from proponents of the strong version of the diversity framework is that the sex-gender binary is one more source of authority that needs to be deconstructed in order to create room for the various exceptions to the sex-gender binary. Proponents believe that the benefits to doing so will open up a new vista for the range of ways in which people experience their sexuality and gender. Such claims challenge not only gender norms that have been widely understood to be socially constructed but also a sex binary as something fixed and stable, tied to an essentialist view with biological foundations.
As I mentioned above, not everyone who adheres to the diversity framework is actively attempting to deconstruct sex and gender. It is hard to estimate how many people who adhere to the diversity framework represent a strong form of the framework. I suspect that those who advocate a strong form of the framework are in the minority, as those who advocate for the strong form tend to be academics who are proponents of the scholarship of Michel Foucault, Judith Butler and others. Over time, such work may reach more of a popular level and tip the balance, but for the time being, I think most adherents of the diversity framework are proponents of the weak form with its emphasis on identity and community. I have had a similar experience in my interactions with people who are gender dysphoric: they value what I refer to as the weak form of the diversity framework because they find answers to questions about identity (“Who am I?”) and community (“Of which community am I a part?”).
To the evangelical Christian, the strong form of the diversity framework (that advocates for the deconstruction of sex and gender) is a much more radical alternative to either the integrity framework or the disability framework. The weak form of the diversity framework will warrant more attention and consideration, but evangelical Christians will be understandably wary of any voices, however nuanced, that draw upon the diversity framework.
How are these different frameworks important as we consider a Christian worldview? It would be wise for Christians to at least recognize that these different frameworks are in play in our cultural discussions surrounding sex and gender. That is a first step—just being able to clearly identify the assumptions behind each framework and how they contribute to the larger cultural discourse.
Table 2.1. Three Contrasting Frameworks
Integrity Framework Disability Framework Diversity Framework
Identifies the phenomenon of gender incongruence as confusing the sacredness of maleness and femaleness and specific resolutions as violations of that integrity. Identifies gender incongruence as a reflection of a fallen world in which the condition is a disability, a nonmoral reality to be addressed with compassion. Strong form: Deconstruction of sex/gender.
Weak form: Highlights transgender issues as reflecting an identity and culture to be celebrated as an expression of diversity.
The failure to recognize frameworks will only contribute to more caricatures of different positions without a more nuanced and accurate understanding of the different stakeholders. To the extent that Christians want to have any kind of meaningful discussion of common ground and genuine differences, there is a need for the development of cognitive complexity, which includes the capacity to see through the eyes of others. To facilitate that kind of perspective taking, it helps to recognize the appeal of the various versions of these frameworks to adherents and to a broader culture that is a witness to these exchanges.
The next step in developing a Christian response is to identify what can be learned from each framework, as well as what concerns may arise if one framework is embraced to the exclusion of the others. As I will unpack in greater detail later in this chapter and again throughout various chapters of this book, Christians can draw on the sacredness, the compassion and the identity dimensions found in the corresponding frameworks of integrity, disability and diversity. No one framework will likely be sufficient for a truly comprehensive Christian engagement.
It is problematic for the evangelical Christian to fully embrace the strong form of the diversity framework and especially the philosophical assumptions that underlie it. However, the diversity framework helps the conservative Christian understand some of the limitations of more conservative (and sometimes rigid) scripts for gender identity and roles. Furthermore, there is no way for the Christian community to understand gender dysphoric individuals without exploring elements of the diversity framework. If Christians simply shout “Integrity, integrity, integrity!” and “Sacred, sacred, sacred!” in discussions about gender dysphoria, we will fail to appreciate ways in which these other frameworks inform how people who experience gender dysphoria navigate difficult and quite complex decisions throughout their lives. In the end, Christians who rely solely on the integrity framework may shore up borders within the local church, but we will actually fail to engage those within the broader culture who are watching these exchanges, and I suspect we will drive gender dysphoric persons away from Christ and away from Christian community.
I invite the reader, then, who might be understandably cautious, to consider what information can be gleaned from both the disability framework and even elements of the weak form of the diversity framework, particularly when it speaks to meaning-making structures for identity and community. At least commit some time to reflect on what may be lost in terms of questions that remain about compassion, identity and community, questions that I believe will be increasingly important considerations in our changing culture.
Toward an integrated framework. My concern is that any one of these three frameworks—to the exclusion of the best the others have to offer—will likely be an inadequate response for the Christian community. My own leaning is to identify strengths in each framework, to essentially see these as lenses through which we see the topic under discussion. Rather than select one lens to look at gender dysphoria, we can look through all three, identify the strengths of each framework and apply it to how we approach the topic and the person who is navigating this terrain. What we have then is what I refer to as an integrated framework that draws on the best of each existing framework.
For example, perhaps because of my role as a psychologist who makes diagnoses and provides treatment in the area in which gender dysphoria is presented in its most severe manifestation, I see value in a disability framework that sees gender dysphoria as a reflection of a fallen world in which the condition itself is a nonmoral reality. This helps me see the person who is navigating gender identity issues with empathy and compassion. The focus here is on how to help a person manage his or her gender dysphoria insofar as it is the result of gender incongruence.
At the same time, as we affirm elements of the disability framework, the church will want to be sensitive to ways in which the integrity framework may need to inform ministry and pastoral care. That framework represents a genuine concern from a Christian worldview for the integrity and sacredness of sex and gender and the potential ways in which maleness and femaleness represent something instructive for the church and something for which we should have high regard.
Figure 2.1. An Integrated Framework
The church should reject as far too reductionistic the teaching that gender incongruence is the result of willful disobedience; such an approach avoids the hard places of ministry and shepherding and keeps the person at bay by placing the blame (and heaping greater shame) on the person navigating gender identity concerns. This is not pastoral care. The church can be sensitive as questions arise about how best to manage gender dysphoria in light of the integrity of male/female differences while recognizing that we live and relate to one another in a specific cultural context in which gender roles are conveyed, in which standards arise that can vary considerably by culture. When we consider how best to manage gender dysphoria, we can also help people do so in the least invasive way possible.
It is important for Christians to be sensitive to the ways in which the weak form of the diversity framework affirms the gender dysphoric person by providing a meaning-making structure for identity that is not found in the other two frameworks. I shared several quotes above that demonstrate that some adherents of the diversity framework (the strong form of the diversity framework) draw on philosophical assumptions that fuel an attempt to deconstruct sex and gender, but not everyone who adheres to the diversity framework has that goal in view. What I want to emphasize here is that the diversity framework speaks to identity. It validates a person’s experience.
Language and Reliance on Different Frameworks for Different Purposes
Sometimes people who clearly love and support one another draw on different frameworks in how they conceptualize and communicate to themselves and to others the experience of gender dysphoria and cross-gender identification. They do so for different reasons and achieve different results.
For example, in the Barbara Walters special updating the experiences of Jazz, a male-to-female gender dysphoric pre-adolescent who is biologically male and has adopted a cross-gender identification as female, there is a point at which Walters asks Jazz’s older sister, “What do you explain to people about your sister?” She says, “I tell people that it’s a disorder and that it wasn’t . . . that it’s not by choice.” In response to this, Jazz shares: “Personally, I don’t like that word [disorder] that much. I prefer ‘special’ or ‘unique’ because that’s what I believe transgender is.”
We see two different frameworks in this brief exchange. Jazz’s older sister is drawing on the disability framework (“it’s a disorder”; “it’s not a choice”); Jazz is drawing on the diversity framework (“I prefer ‘special’ or ‘unique’”). The benefit of the disability framework is that it helps Jazz’s sister communicate to friends about the condition or experience of gender dysphoria in a way that maximizes the likelihood of them demonstrating compassion; it lets her explain that this is not volitional—it’s not something Jazz has chosen in terms of the phenomenon itself. Appeal to the disability framework can bring forth greater empathy and compassion.
Jazz prefers the diversity framework. Her reference in the exchange is not about talking to others; she is not focusing on peer group acceptance. She is talking about self-acceptance, about how she thinks of herself. The diversity framework gets at meaning, purpose, and sense of self, identity and community. It is important to understand that the language of a “disorder” her sister uses to talk to friends is not providing Jazz with the meaning-making structures that would be as appealing for identity.
These are two different frameworks being used by different people in the same family for different purposes.
What most people who are gender dysphoric find in the church is rejection and shame—the feeling that there is something fundamentally flawed in them, that the flaw is their fault (back to willful disobedience) and that if others knew about their gender incongruence, they too would reject them. This is essentially the formula for shame, and that formula will not provide any kind of meaningful structure for identity. In that formula, the gender dysphoric person who is also a Christian or was raised in a Christian community comes across standards or rules that are related to gender identity and gender roles. The gender dysphoric person is—by virtue of the experience of gender dysphoria—unable to live up to those standards or rules associated with gender identity and roles. That person may be told that the failure to experience the kind of congruence between one’s biological sex and the psychological experience of one’s gender is due to personal deficiencies or shortcomings within him or her. This is the formula for shame.
Figure 2.2. Shame and gender dysphoria61
When we look at the formula for shame and the likelihood that shame will be the primary reality for most people who are Christian or raised in the church and experience gender dysphoria, is it any wonder that people will be drawn to the diversity framework to find identity, value and self-worth?
In addition to answering questions about identity, the diversity framework also answers important questions about community. The transgender community and the broader LGBT movement and community provides answers to the questions “Where do I belong?” and “Of which community am I a part?” These are critical questions that arise out of that earlier, central question about identity: “Who am I?” and “Who else understands, accepts and validates me in substantive ways?” are critical considerations for those who experience gender dysphoria.
In a study of transgender Christians, we asked the question, “What kind of support would you have liked from the church?” These can be difficult questions to reflect on if a person has previously been hurt in the church. Sometimes answers provide a glimpse into entire stories that go untold. One male-to-female transgender Christian shared, “. . . someone to cry with me, rather than just denounce me. Hey, it is scary to see God not rescue someone from cancer or schizophrenia or [gender dysphoria], . . . but learn to allow your compassion to overcome your fear and repulsion.”62
The meaning-making structure found in the diversity framework—particularly in contrast to the message of shame from the church—is compelling and likely to be a significant draw for support and encouragement that is being underestimated today. Also, I know several gender variant persons who reflect on God’s both/and maleness and femaleness as significant to them personally. One biological female who experiences gender dysphoria and is a Christian shared with me how the insights in this area (of God’s both/and maleness/femaleness) have been a blessing to her. This was not initially a blessing when she first experienced gender identity conflicts, but the blessing would come later, as she was able to reflect more on her gender identity questions, as she shared with me she had an uncanny ability to understand a female and male side of things with insights and understandings few others would experience.
