–
There is an unusual medical condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS). It is caused by a genetic mutation with the result that a developing fetus with the male XY chromosome pattern does not respond to the male androgens produced through the Y chromosome so that the fetus develops as a female. In utero we all start out as female and will develop as a female unless the Y chromosome is present and the fetus responds to its male hormones. (This seems to run contrary to the Genesis 2 story that Adam was first and Eve was derived from him!) Externally the baby looks female, but has undescended testes and no uterus. In medical school one of our professors told us that a popular actress at that time (and still is) who was considered sexy is in fact genetically male because of this condition. Her two children are adopted, which is as expected since the condition makes one infertile. I cannot share her name because it would be an invasion of privacy and now probably a HIPAA violation (that professor might get in trouble these days). There is also a partial version of this condition which can give the baby ambiguous genitalia. They may be raised as males or as females and may have a male or a female gender identity, which only becomes evident when the child is able to express such thoughts and tendencies. I mention this condition to show that although evolution has designed us as male and female for good reasons there are nonetheless exceptions to just about every rule. To be clear: I am not equating AIS with transgender or any other LGBTQ category; I am simply pointing out that gender is not as simple and straightforward as many people assume. Another aspect of development to consider is that our physical characteristics are developed by the end of the first trimester, but our brain continues to develop throughout pregnancy and even after we are born. Is it so hard to envision that a developing fetus could have changing conditions during pregnancy that could cause the physical and mental development to proceed differently such that the child looks like one gender but thinks like another? I find it to be very plausible.
Let me mention another condition which so far has not been associated with gender and orientation issues but raises some interesting possibilities. There is what is known as a chimera, named after the Greek mythology of a hybrid creature. This is a person who has a subset of their cells that are genetically different from the rest of the body. This can happen if there is a genetic mutation early in the fetal development, or possibly it can be the result of the fusion or sharing of genetic material between fraternal twins (which can be of different sexes), sometimes one being absorbed by the other or otherwise fading away (a so-called “vanishing twin”). There are also studies showing that fetal DNA can cross the placenta, enter the mother’s circulation and then cross the blood-brain barrier, where it can be detected years later in the mother’s brain. This raises the possibility that the mother’s DNA can end up in the fetus as well. How would that affect the fetus (if at all)? We really do not know how many people in the population have some degree of chimerism or maternal-fetal DNA swap, because there is no reason to test everyone. Most cases are discovered by accident when testing is done for specific reasons (like preparation for an organ transplant). To be clear, I am not asserting that chimerism or fetal-maternal DNA swapping explains being LGBTQ. I am pointing out that human development is a very complex process. I am asserting that understanding how we humans develop opens up the possibility that gender issues are not as simple as looking at your genes or in your jeans. It is naïve in light of modern knowledge to think that it is a straightforward binary, black-and-white issue, as so many people assume. And it is an issue that causes considerable controversy, like…
In 2022 there was a horrible incident in which a political candidate in Santa Rosa county, Florida, suggested that doctors who assisted with gender reassignment of young people should be hung from trees.[1] Reportedly this comment was greeted with applause from the audience rather than outrage. Applause for the suggestion of lynching someone? Seriously? Unfortunately, the negative, even hateful attitude toward transgender people and gender reassignment often comes from those claiming to be Bible-believing Christians. Does the Bible say that having gender dysphoria or having reassignment surgery is a sin?
First, let’s be clear about our word use. Here is a brief glossary, from the American Psychological Association website:
* Cisgender: Used to describe an individual whose gender identity and gender expression align with the sex assigned at birth. (The old term “straight” is kind of insulting, as if everyone else is “crooked?”)
* Gender dysphoria: Discomfort or distress related to an incongruence between an individual’s gender identity and the gender assigned at birth.
* Gender expression: Clothing, physical appearance and other external presentations and behaviors that express aspects of gender identity or role.
* Gender identity: An internal sense of being male, female or something else, which may or may not correspond to an individual’s sex assigned at birth or sex characteristics.
* Queer or Genderqueer: Describes an individual whose gender identity doesn’t align with a binary understanding of gender, including those who think of themselves as both male and female, neither, moving between genders, a third gender or outside of gender altogether.
* Transgender: An umbrella term encompassing those whose gender identities or gender roles differ from those typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth.
* Transition: The process of shifting toward a gender role different from that assigned at birth, which can include social transition, such as new names, pronouns and clothing, and medical transition, such as hormone therapy or surgery.
Note that the terms “heterosexual” and “homosexual” are not listed because they relate to sexual orientation, meaning which gender is attractive to that person. Sexual orientation should not be confused with gender identity (which I suspect it often is).
There have been transgender people with us throughout history, but the technology to achieve medical transition is relatively recent.[2] Obviously there was no transgender medicine or surgery in Biblical times – or was there? They did have one type of gender-altering procedure: castration, to create eunuchs. This was usually done by crushing the testicles of a boy before reaching puberty. Cutting out of the testicles might cause complications like hemorrhage, infection and death, so crushing was safer, but I cannot imagine the pain involved, or the mindset of someone who would perform such a procedure on a boy. The result was that rather than developing masculine characteristics he would remain effeminate, like lack of facial hair, less muscle mass, more prominent breasts, and higher voice. Why? Such men were considered safe around the master’s wife or harem. Some eunuchs are still capable of having sex, but because they were infertile they were not a threat to the royal bloodline. Since they did not marry or have children they were considered very loyal to their masters and very trustworthy. Some eunuchs (castrati) were used for singing, as their voices remained in the higher ranges. They were often used in church choirs when and where women were not allowed to sing, and surprisingly it was not until 1878 that Pope Leo XIII finally ended the Italian practice of castrating young males to maintain their soprano voices. TO BE CLEAR: like with AIS I am not saying eunuchs are equivalent to transgender, although it is possible some of the boys were transgender and saw castration as a way of being more feminine. Others may have had it simply forced upon them. Either way, they fall outside the strict male-female dichotomy many modern Christians adhere to, so I think there is something to be learned from the example of eunuchs since they are mentioned in the Bible.
Eunuchs are mentioned a number of times in the Bible, but the process of making boys eunuchs is never condemned. (But then, children are given virtually no specific protections in the Law of Moses.) It is never said to be a sin to become a eunuch. Let me repeat that: nowhere in the Bible does it condemn those who were eunuchs or label it as a sin even though they did not conform to the usual model of being male. Eunuchs could be priests, but were excluded from offering up sacrifices (Leviticus 21:20), but then so were people with scoliosis, cataracts or a number of other common conditions, none of which were considered sinful. Still, eunuchs would likely have been looked down upon by some as sexual oddities. However, the book of Isaiah offers them hope:
–
For this is what the Lord says:
“To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me,
To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial,
And a name better than that of sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name which will not be eliminated.
Isaiah 56: 4, 5
–
Not only will eunuchs be welcomed into God’s house, but they will be given a place of honor for their faithfulness, even though they have been sexually altered and do not conform to the normal male stereotype and perhaps are looked down upon by others.
The New Testament has two significant passages concerning eunuchs; the first by Jesus:
–
“For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 19:12
–
Obviously most were made eunuchs by others. Men like Jesus and Paul were so devoted to the Kingdom of God that they eschewed sexual relations, making themselves eunuchs in essence. However, some literally castrated themselves, like the early church theologian Origen, or the Skoptsy sect in Russia (they also performed mastectomy of women). But what did Jesus mean that some were “born” eunuchs?
Possibly people were aware of cryptorchidism, in which the testicles do not descend into the scrotum, but while this can cause infertility it would not cause the boy to develop into an effeminate or asexual eunuch. I think Jesus meant something different than that. People in Biblical times may not have had a good understanding of gender identity and sexual orientation, but they certainly knew that some men preferred the company of other men or simply had no interest in sex, and some men had feminine habits and characteristics, just as there would have been girls and women who did not conform to the expected female stereotype. They were like eunuchs, but without having been castrated; they were simply that way from birth. I worked with a nurse who told me that her whole family knew her younger brother was gay long before he came to realize it; he seemed to be “born” that way. Being gay and being transgender are different, but both are examples of innate sexual characteristics that seem to be present from infancy (or at least early childhood, when such characteristics become evident[3]). We can argue the details, but I think Jesus was acknowledging that some people are sexually different from birth, not through the action of others, or by a later choice of their own. Those who suffered gender dysphoria, feeling like they were born into the wrong sex, had no access to medications, and the only surgical option was castration, and that was only for boys, not girls. So most simply had to live with it and make the best of it. But there is no suggestion in the Bible that it was a sin to feel that way.
The other relevant passage is found in Acts 8. There the evangelist Philip is directed by an angel to teach the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch. The eunuch was said to have “come to Jerusalem to worship” and is struggling with a passage from Isaiah, so it is likely he is already a convert to Judaism, but it is interesting that the author has this early story of a conversion to Christianity involve a person who has two strikes against him: he is a eunuch (a sexually odd person), and he is almost certainly a dark-skinned foreigner, quite possibly black. I have no doubt that the people of that day had the same issues with different skin colors that we still see today. Read Numbers 12: Moses’ sister Miriam seems to take exception to Moses marrying a dark-skinned Cushite (Ethiopian) woman, and so is given the ironic punishment of having her own skin turn white – with leprosy! Prejudice was as much an issue then as now.
So, this dark-skinned eunuch is converted and saved. No issue is made of his status as a eunuch or a dark-skinned foreigner. Perhaps the author of Acts is using this as a fulfillment of Isaiah 56 (which mentions both eunuchs and foreigners), that now even foreigners and eunuchs are openly welcomed into the kingdom of God. He doesn’t stop being a eunuch and his skin color doesn’t change, but he is welcome in the kingdom of God. It is a beautiful message, even though it was ignored in the days of segregated churches, and I fear is often ignored today in regard to gender issues.
I suspect there were those in the early church who did harbor prejudice against eunuchs, because in 325 CE the first Council of Nicaea thought it necessary to address the issue of eunuchs. No, the council did NOT decide Jesus was divine, or define the books of the Bible as many think, but they did address eunuchs. They did not approve of self-castration but they did say that eunuchs could be in the clergy if otherwise worthy. Not just in the church, but in the clergy. That sounds like a rather clear statement of tolerance and acceptance and a rejection of prejudice.
Does any of this prove that having gender dysphoria or going through gender reassignment surgery is not a sin? Maybe not, but I think the burden is on those who want to say that it is a sin. On what basis? The argument that it is not natural is very weak: increasing evidence says that the variety of gender and sexual expressions we see in people is entirely natural; people are indeed “born” that way, as Jesus himself suggested. Just because a trait is not in the majority does not make it “abnormal,” otherwise we would label left-handed people as “abnormal.” I read a fascinating book, Different by primatologist Frans de Waal in which he points out that many behaviors of primates, our closest animal cousins, fall outside the “normal” male-female roles. Some females act more like males. Some practice same-sex genital stimulation. They practice other habits the church has traditionally considered “abnormal,” like masturbation, sometimes with objects suitable for the purpose. “Abnormal” is more normal than you’d think, if you take the time to research it.
“But you shouldn’t change the way you were born; God doesn’t make mistakes!” Then explain circumcision to me. God put a foreskin on the male penis only to have Abraham and his descendants cut it off? A simpler example: God designed men to have hair on their faces and women on their legs, so is it a sin for us to shave those areas, since God doesn’t make mistakes?[4] Or wear eyeglasses or dye our hair? Should we tell a child with cystic fibrosis that she can’t have a lung transplant because God doesn’t make mistakes? We don’t apply that perverse reasoning to any number of other conditions that we are born with; why apply it to gender dysphoria?
Many conservative Christians want men to act like men, and women like women, and yet they oppose gender reassignment. That seems backwards to me. Transgender men want to look and act like the men they have been since birth, and women likewise. Christians should therefore welcome transition, not oppose it. And even if a transgender person does not choose to go through gender reassignment common decency as well as Christian love ought to lead us to treat those people with the kindness and concern we should express for any human being.
I wonder why people living 2,000 or more years ago are thought to have a better understanding of gender than we do today. They had no understanding of genetics, fetal development, hormones and other factors that affect our bodies and minds, so why do we accept their primitive ideas as the ultimate word on such matters? Because God inspired the writing of the Bible? The Bible does not even discuss the nature of gender identity or sexual orientation.[5] Doesn’t God know about genetics and hormones and such? If so, why didn’t He devote some room in the Bible to enlighten us on such matters? It is reasonable for a parent to tell a toddler not to put his finger in an electrical socket without an explanation he cannot understand, but when he gets older a good parent will explain electricity and how it poses a danger to him. We have learned a lot about ourselves and our world in the past 2,000 years. Lord, maybe it’s time for a second, updated edition? We are no longer toddlers in our understanding of the world.
Frankly, I think the objection to being transgender has no basis in the Bible; I think it is prejudice, pure and simple. Our human nature makes us suspicious or fearful of those who are different from us. But our human intellect can be used to overcome our prejudices; that is our advantage. I know that it may seem very strange to you that a man feels like he should be a woman, or that a woman feels that she should be a man. Likewise with a man being attracted to another man, or a woman to another woman. Guess what: it is OK to “feel” uncomfortable with that! Of course it does not seem natural to you: you were not born that way; you are not wired that way. But that doesn’t matter. We need to recognize that there a lot of different people in the world and they don’t all have to be like us, and being different is not automatically a sin. What an awful and boring world this would be if everybody was like me! So, if I don’t “feel” comfortable with someone else I shrug it off and still do my best to treat them as a decent, worthy and equal human being. I want to overcome my errant feelings, not consecrate them and inflict them on the world.
Let me close with some advice from the apostle Paul:
–
“Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we instructed you, so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.”
1st Thessalonians 4:11, 12
–
“For what business of mine is it to judge outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?”
1st Corinthians 5:12
–
Paul is basically saying, “Mind your own business!” And when he says to behave properly toward outsiders I do not think he means to lynch them! I think this is consistent with the teachings of Jesus, who put the emphasis on introspection and self-correction, not the policing of others. “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:3) Always see your own sins as bigger than those of others, and be concerned with your own primarily, not theirs. In Matthew 5 Jesus also said that if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out! Or if your hand causes you to sin, cut if off! He didn’t say to go around plucking out other people’s eyes or cutting off their hands. (I don’t think Jesus was actually promoting self-mutilation, but was emphasizing the importance of looking inside yourself rather than blaming others for your sin.)
It is not surprising to me that church membership is falling in America. I think many people, particularly young people are tired of seeing church members condemning and trying to control those outside the church rather than being concerned with their own morality and ethics, which often seems to be sorely lacking. How can one claim the moral high ground while calling for the lynching of others? Especially when there is no sound Biblical basis for such a position? Maybe such people should consider what Jesus said was the second most important commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mark 12:31) No exceptions noted.
–
Thinking exercises:
–
1. Is it possible to define a “normal” human being given all the different characteristics we have? Is something outside the norm necessarily “sinful?”
2. With so many serious problems in the world why are the major religions so preoccupied with our private personal matters like gender and sex?
3. If you found out that the pretty woman you are dating is genetically XY would that change your opinion of her? Would it matter if she was born that way (as with AIS) or transitioned to be that way? If a woman, how would you feel if your date asked you if you had been born a man?
4. Why are some churches lenient on divorce and remarriage, issues Jesus directly spoke about, while being inflexible about gender identity or sexual orientation, which Jesus did not directly address?
5. If clear scientific evidence eventually shows that being gay or transgender has a definite origin in our development (genetics, fetal environment, etc.) and is not merely a lifestyle choice would that change your thinking about whether or not it is a sin? Do you think God would condemn someone for simply being the product of the development system He designed?
[1] As reported in the Pensacola News Journal on July 20, 2022.
[2] The book Sex and Religion: Teachings and Taboos in the History of World Faiths by Dag Ølstein Endsjø was very helpful to me in appreciating the diversity of sexual expression throughout history and now.
[3] Studies suggest gender dysphoria is usually already established by age 7, as with this study published through the JAMA Network: Age at First Experience of Gender Dysphoria Among Transgender Adults Seeking Gender-Affirming Surgery
Mar 16, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1236
[4] Actually, according to Leviticus 21:5 maybe it is a sin to shave! And body piercing. Does that include pierced earrings?
[5] I know there are a few isolated verses condemning male-on-male sex, and a few passages from Paul with questionable translations (for example, the word “homosexual” is not found in the Greek New Testament despite modern translations), but there is never any discussion of gender identity and sexual orientation as we understand it today.