Holding Faith with our Transgender Neighbors—Week 2: Queerfully and Wonderfully Made

Listening to Trans and Nonbinary Voices

       Our time together began with a check-in from this week’s homework to look at some church websites and list those that are explicit in inclusion, those that are vague, and those that exclude. Despite the geographic diversity of our group, coast to coast including both red and blue states, we were able to find examples in every place of churches that were openly hostile to the LGBTQ+ community, those that were explicitly inclusive, and those that failed to state where they stand. We discussed how it might feel to read those words as a transperson searching for a safe community. Many churches choose a statement like “all are welcome” which sounds nice, but so many gender-diverse folks have been burned by churches that sound friendly and welcoming, but experience a bait-and-switch when they hit walls of exclusion as they seek greater involvement. As a result, open and affirming churches need to be very explicit, even obnoxiously so, to be clear that they are a safe for all.

       We then moved to our “empathy exercise”– drawing from trans and nonbinary authors to amplify their voices and help us begin to understand their experience. Kay read a selection from She’s Not There (pg. 19-21) by Jennifer Finney Boylan, a trans author who transitioned late in life. She describes beautifully her experience of knowing from a young age that her gender didn’t fit: “The awareness that I was in the wrong body, living the wrong life, was never out of my conscious mind—never, although my understanding of what it meant to be a boy or a girl was something that changed over time. Still, the conviction was present during my piano lessons with Mr. Henderson and it was there when my father and I shot off model rockets, and it was there years later when I took the SAT and it was there in the middle of the night when I woke in my dormitory at Wesleyan. And in every moment as I lived my life, I countered this awareness with an exasperated companion thought, namely, Don't be an idiot. You're not a girl. Get over it.... But I never got over it…”             

The Biology of Gender

       From there Kay led in a exploration of the biology of gender. We learned that the SRY gene on the Y chromosome that turns on the male-associated genes sometimes pops off the Y chromosome and over to an X chromosome. We think of “hormonal male” as having “normal” levels of male-associated hormones, but some females have higher levels of male hormones than some males—and vice-versa. Or sometimes as someone is developing, their body may not produce enough hormones for their genetic sex. Sometimes the receptors don’t recognize the signals from the sex-related genes. This means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male or female or non-binary, with cells that may or may not recognize those signals... leading to a body that can be non-binary. The bottom line is that the biology of sex is complicated. In this session we explore that complexity as something that might, itself, be quite wonderful. 

       Which leads to a few more terms to unpack: Gender is biopsychosocial: it has aspects that have to do with our biology, our psychology, and aspects that are socially constructed. All these aspects interact. The biological part of the equation has to do with your body, and is often referred to as your assigned sex, or sex assigned at birth. If a person’s physical characteristics are easy to classify as either male or female, that person is endosex. Some people are intersex, which means they have differences in their reproductive organs, chromosomes, or ability to produce or receive gender-related hormones. Intersex occurs in about 1% of the population—same as redheadedness. It also occurs in the animal kingdom (google intersex birds to see some cool photos). 

       The psychological part of gender is your gender identity, which is your internal sense of being male, female, both, or neither. Almost all (but not all) people have a gender identity. We don’t choose our gender identity; rather, it’s something that is innate and develops as we grow, much like left or right handedness. This internal sense happens in the brain, which is of course part of our body and thus biological, which means it can be difficult to draw a hard line between psychological and biological aspects of gender.

       The sociological part of gender is both individual and communal: Individually, each person has a gender expression, which has to do with the way you act out gender through things like clothing, hair, voice, and mannerisms. We may try to match our gender expression to our gender identity as closely as we can… Or we may be a little more playful with it. Our gender expression is often influenced by cultural norms and by the situation we’re in as much as by our own wishes, so we can’t make assumptions about someone’s gender identity based on their gender expression.

       For a fuller exploration, see ch. 2 of Transforming by Austen Hartke. 

Why are some people transgender: three views

       Continuing to draw from Hartke’s book, we address the question of why some people are transgender. Mark Yarhouse is an influential psychology professor at Wheaton College who has written from a conservative Christian understanding of gender identity. While I disagree with his conclusions, his work explaining and classifying three basic Christian views is helpful in understanding the lens or framework people use to interpret gender diversity:

       The first view is what Yarhouse called the integrity framework: the notion that trans or nonbinary gender identity is sin. This view is closely associated with complementarianism—the notion that there are distinctly masculine and feminine roles ordained by God. Thus they believe that transgender people should see their experience of gender dysphoria as a “trial” or cross they should bear. This often leads to shame or self-hatred.

       This view is based on “gender essentialism”: the belief that there are innate, unchangeable differences between men and women. However, neurological studies have shown that the brains of transgender men are more similar to cisgender men than to cisgender women, and vice-versa—even before hormone therapy. It seems our brains most closely relate to our gender identity.

       This complementarian view often leads to Gender Identity Change Efforts (GICE), or conversion therapy. The state of California has banned the use of conversion therapy on minors, due to the overwhelming evidence that it is harmful. Trans people exposed to GICE are two times as likely to take their own lives, four times as likely if the GICE takes place before the person is 10 years old.

       A second perspective is the disability framework: that transgender identity is a form of sickness. This view that suggests individuals are struggling with a mental health concern, not a moral one. They didn't choose it. This is Yarhouse's view, and he hopes it will lead Christians to be more compassionate in their response. It certainly is more compassionate than the open hostility of the integrity framework. But he is driven by gender essentialism: the assumption that male and female genders are mandated by God.

       One reason Christians might classify nonbinary identity as mental illness is the statistics we discussed last week. Suicide and depression rates are very high among the transgender community. However, as we discussed, those awful statistics seem to be the result of oppression and exclusion, rather than inherent to the experience itself. One reason to reject the mental illness framework is the data that shows that those who are not rejected are far less likely to experience depression. 

       A final viewpoint is what Yarhouse calls the diversity framework (or specialty). This view celebrates transgender identities as expressions of diversity, a natural variation just like all the diversity of gender found in the natural world. Throughout creation, all kinds of plants and animals can switch back and forth between genders, or have multiple genders beyond just male and female. For example, the bluehead wrasse is a type of fish that appears to have three different sexes, and can change between the three at different stages of life.

       The framework we use to understand and interpret gender identity matters. The diversity framework has been shown to have significantly reduced rates of depression and anxiety, reminding us that an important reason why we engage in the work of inclusion is that it is literally life-saving.

Queerfully & Wonderfully Made

(I wish I could take credit for this cool title, but I’m borrowing it from others).

       Our brains are designed to categorize things quickly—its an adaptive skill. We are built to notice and organize data. Those labels can either be helpful and healing or constricting and harmful. This is why we look at the world and culturally determined gender expression and see a binary—male and female. Yet throughout history there have been people who fall between the binaries. Many indigenous cultures celebrate “two spirit” people who fall outside the gender binary.

       For many Christians, Scripture is the barrier to full inclusion. The passage most often used to exclude gender diversity is Gen. 1, because it seems like it is reinforcing that gender binary as part of God’s intent for creation:

       Gen. 1:1-25 describes creation in terms of a series of binaries: light/dark, day/night, water/sky. We see in the text clues that this is a form of poetry. We can see parallelism in the creation of three spaces in days 1-3 that are each filled with good things (e.g. day one’s light and dark are filled in day four with sun and moon, day two’s sky and sea are filled in day five with birds and fish. This helps us move beyond literalism to something more powerful and beautifully true, that culminates in vs. 26-27:

       Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, to be like us. Let them be stewards of the fish in the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle, the wild animals, and everything that crawls on the ground.”  Humankind was created as God’s reflection: in the divine image God created them; female and male, God made them.

       So we see here that the creation account contains many pairs that seem like binaries— dark/light; day/night, sky/sea, dry land/sea. Yet each of these binaries is, in fact, not a binary but rather a polarity. They describe two endpoints on a continuum. We have dark and light—but we also have twilight, dawn, all sorts of times when light is dim. We have day and night—but all sorts of times between noon and midnight—evening, morning, etc. We have dry land and sea but also have swamps and bogs and wetlands. It's a figure of speech called a "merism." It's similar to the phrase “I searched high and low.” We know that doesn't mean your search ignored all the mid-range places, but rather is an expression that outlines the broad scope of your search. In the same way, as the science has shown us, male and female are not binary, but rather two endpoints in a continuum of gender identity and gender expression.

       We intuitively get this continuum with light and with land– no one needs to explain to us that afternoon and morning are included in light/dark. So why is it that we read male and female as binary?

        A helpful explanation is offered by Tara Soughers in her book Beyond a Binary God: "Binary pairs are useful for simplifying large amounts of info we are required to process. It's developmentally appropriate for young children to think in binary terms… (but) most of us have learned that binaries are limiting and in many cases are inadequate to describe the world around us...

       "However, there are some binaries that seem to be difficult for us to let go of. Often, these are categories around identity: who is who, and how different groups are valued… these binaries are much harder for us to ignore, as they serve to mark the boundaries between those who are like us and those who are not. Marketing, politics, and the legal system all tend to reinforce these markers of identity, privileging some at the expense of others. While many people fall between the extremes, we often act as if there is an obvious dividing line."

       We can observe similar “us/them” arbitrary divisions in our culture still today: Republican/Democrat, white/people of color, immigrant/native born, rich/poor, or conservative/liberal. This tendency to think in binaries—especially with groups of people—is hard-wired in us. It feels unified because it reinforces group identity—even as it leads to greater division and hatred. Perhaps one reason (besides scapegoating) that the trans community is under attack right now has to do with this identity piece. For Christian nationalists who are trying to preserve a certain white male identity, the presence of nonbinary folks seems to be a challenge to their identity and purpose. One of the true gifts of trans and nonbinary inclusion is the way it pushes us to think beyond us/them.

       Returning to Gen. 1:26-27, we find a couple of interesting things:

Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, to be like us. Let them be stewards of the fish in the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle, the wild animals, and everything that crawls on the ground.” Humankind was created as God’s reflection: in the divine image God created them; female and male, God made them.

       Two immediate things we might notice is first of all, in this passage, God uses they/them pronouns to refer to Godself. The Hebrew word for God found in Genesis 1, Elohim, is a plural noun. It’s also noteworthy that both men and women are in the image of God. This suggests that God’s own self is not exclusively male, but rather is something that is both or more than male and female.

       All of which leads to the question:    What IS the “image of God” (imago Dei)? We hear the term “image of God” a lot, but seldom stop to ask what it means. Turns out there are several theories:

1.  A physical characteristic: the Bible speaks of the eye of God, the hand of God.

2.  Some nonphysical characteristic, such as humanity’s unique intellect, moral reasoning or creativity.

3.  Caretaking/ dominion: because the passage contains the words “let them have dominion over... every creeping thing” the image of God could be seen as humanity’s responsibility to be stewards of the earth.

4.  Through our gender: because “male and female” is emphasized in the text, complementarians say you need both men and women together to be the image of God. This view is associated with the “integrity framework” that defines trans and nonbinary identity as sin.

5.  Something relational: the emphasis on men and women means more broadly that humans need intimate, vulnerable relationships. I would argue for this view: we need community. We are created and intended to be in mutual, loving relationships with others. 

       Tara Soughers notes that "the writers of the first creation story were expressing their belief that both men and women image God, a radical idea in a time when women were often seen as inferior, derivative, or even property. Their insistence upon naming the two genders seems to have been an attempt to expand those who were seen as being made in God's image, not narrow it." She goes on to say: "We learn from this that human beings are complicated. We often try to make things simple—either/or– but humans rarely fit neatly into binary categories. In creating human nature, God seems to have delighted in complexity rather than simplicity."

       Our experience in the world and creation is that our gender identity does seems to be innate—which means, God did make us the way we are—including people who don't fit the gender binary. The Genesis creation story ends in v. 31: God saw all that was made and it was very good.

       Genesis 1 is a celebration of diversity. We see this intuitively as we walk through a forest, alongside the ocean or through a beautiful garden. We delight in the diversity of flowers, of wildlife, of beauty. This is no less true with the diversity of human beings. It is a holy and wonderful thing to celebrate all that beautiful uniqueness. The inclusion of trans and nonbinary folks in our faith communities helps us celebrate and expand our understanding of ourselves and of God’s own self.

Homework: Spend time in prayer this week reflecting on your identity as an image-bearer of God. When God calls you by name, what do you imagine God calls you? Is it your first name, or a name that describes you on a deeper level? Allow yourself to wonder what name or term of endearment God might want to give you to honor a particular trait you possess or transformation you've experienced.

       As a bonus, you might want to experiment with praying or journaling about God, using diverse pronouns or images, such as the biblical image of God as mother hen. Not to replace more familiar masculine names or images, but rather to expand our imagination. Notice what changes if you pray to “mother God” or think of diverse ways to imagine divinity. 

God of endless wonder,

       The world you created is incredible. The vastness of the universe, the diversity of life itself. We are amazed. And of all the complex and wonderful things you have created, perhaps people are the most incredible.

       Forgive us for the urge to tame all this overwhelming complexity into bite-size pieces. Forgive us for thinking we can create artificial barriers between “us” and “them.” Help us instead to simply marvel at the wildness and beauty of all you have created. Amen.