Week 3: Would you rather?

       Have you ever played Zobmondo? It's a game that gives you a couple of options—just two—to choose from. You will be invited to consider things like: Would you rather be a giant hamster… or a tiny rhino? Would you rather be able to see one year into the future… or change one thing in your past? Would you rather drink an entire bowl of gravy… or have a large spider trapped in your hair?

       The game is full of binaries—as if there were only two options—hamster or rhino—and no others. That set the stage for this week's discussion. But first, Lina led us in a guided meditation that encouraged us to imagine an alternative universe where cisgender heterosexual folks were a marginalized minority. We explored together the emotional landscape of feeling powerless, shamed, and maligned.

Why are some people transgender?

       This led into an exploration of the question: Why are some people transgender? In ch. 3 of Hartke's book, he explores three views, three ways Christians and others approach the question. How we answer that question then becomes the lens or framework around which we interpret all of the data and biblical passages we will explore in this workshop. The three broad views are:

1.  Integrity framework (sin): This is the view held by those who follow complementarianism—the notion that there are distinctly masculine and feminine roles ordained by God. In this view, transgender people should see their experience as a "trial" or cross they should bear.

       Hartke provides some counter-evidence to refute this view. For example, 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.

       Hartke notes that this perspective often leads to shame or self-hatred. Complementarianism is associated with Gender Identity Change Efforts (GICE), or conversion therapy. Trans people exposed to GICE are twice as likely to take their own lives, four times as likely if the GICE takes place before the person is 10 years old.

2.  Disability framework (sickness): The view holds that trans individuals are struggling with a mental health concern, not a moral one. They didn't choose it.

       This view is often advocated in the hopes it will lead Christians to be more compassionate in their response. But it is still driven by the assumption that there are distinct male and female genders mandated by God.

       Proponents of this view might point to the fact that suicide and depression rates are very high among the transgender community. But that tragic reality seems to be the result of oppression and exclusion, rather than inherent to the experience itself. Minority stress is the term given to the experience of many marginalized communities, not just LGBTQ, who experience discrimination, hatred, and threats of violence. Hartke notes that trans and nonbinary individuals who are not rejected are far less likely to experience depression.

3.  Diversity framework (specialty): This perspective 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.  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 results of this view are dramatically different. The diversity framework has been shown to have significantly reduced rates of depression and anxiety.

       As we continue the study, keep these three categories in mind as we examine the assumptions about transgender experience which shape our perception. We are encouraged to ask ourselves which framework best fits the data? What is the fruit of each of these frameworks?

Looking at Scripture and the Old Testament Law

       We're going to spend the majority of our time from here on out in Scripture. We have a range of views in this group about the Bible, but for most it is a central and important source of authority. For many Christians, it's the barrier to full inclusion. I want to take those concerns seriously. 

       There are only two verses that  directly address gender identity. The first is  a particularly harsh denunciation found in the Old Testament law: Deut. 22:5: A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.

       Deut. 22: 5 is indicative of a larger problem Christians—who generally hold the whole Bible as authoritative—have grappling with their relationship to the Old Testament Law. It's full of some very odd rules—many of which very few Christians follow today. Most have to do with blood including menstruation, with food, or with "mixing" things like crops or fibers. Christians struggle with which of these rules they are supposed to follow. In Acts 10, Peter is explicitly called by God to reject the OT rules about food, being told “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” So clearly some of the rules are not for us today.

       Pastors and theologians have attempted time and again to find a way to differentiate which rules are binding for Christians today and which aren't. They will distinguish between a "moral code" versus a "cultural (or purity) code." But the fact is, the two are intermingled throughout the book. The rules Christians think are “cultural” are placed right alongside the ones we think are “essential”—with no clear distinction.

       It's helpful to remember that these laws were written to a people (the Hebrew community) coming out of slavery in Egypt, where they had no freedom—every aspect of their lives dictated by their oppressors. They are learning how to form a community of free people. And they are entering into the Promised Land—Canaan. But there were already people living in that land: Canaanites, Philistines. (The fact that they are displacing another people group raises other theological problems– but that's a discussion for our next workshop, Inspired). The Levitical law was about being set apart from the people in Egypt and Canaan. The rules are making them distinct, different. They highlight how Yahweh is calling them to a distinctive way of life.

       A lot of Jesus' teachings have to do with establishing a new relationship with the OT Law. An excellent resource is Glen Stassen's book, Living the Sermon on the Mount. In it, Stassen shows how Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, but to show us it's intent (Matt. 5:17). In the sermon on the mount, Jesus spends three chapters (Matt. 5-7) exploring this relationship. He gives example after example, with each one following the same pattern:

       1. Jesus begins by quoting an Old Testament law, often introduced by the phrase, “you have heard it said.”

       2. He shows how interpreting that law or rule literally is fruitless—a vicious cycle.

       3. Jesus then shows us God's better way: how focusing on the heart—inner transformation of our attitudes, rather than rigid adherence to external laws—leads to freedom.

       Unfortunately, Deut. 22:5 is not one of the examples Jesus chooses to focus on in the sermon. But we can ponder what this same pattern might look like when applied to this particular law. How might a focus on internal heart change over external obedience help us in interpreting Deut. 22:5?

Why we love binaries

       Our brains are designed to categorize things quickly—its an adaptive skill. From the earliest age we begin to notice similarities and sort the world into categories. Gender is one of those things we begin to sort out early on, with certain culturally determined cues to help us quickly categorize boy or girl. It's an important part of understanding the world and learning language.

       But it's important to become aware of the assumptions we are making along the way. Labels can be helpful and healing—if they help us feel less alone or to get help. But they can be constricting and harmful if they keep us stuck or “othered.”

       The urge to label and categorize things is a natural one. This is why we look at the world and see a binary—male and female. We are quickly categorizing things, without noting the exceptions. Yet throughout history there have been people who fall between the binaries. 

Does Gen 1 teach a gender binary? 

       Our urge to make sense of the world, to bring order out of chaos, is found even in the very first chapter of Scripture itself: 

       Then God said, “Light: Be!” and light was. God saw that light was good, and God separated light from darkness. God called the light “Day” and the darkness “Night.” Evening came, and morning followed—the first day. Then God said, “Now, make an expanse between the waters! Separate water from water!” So it was: God made the expanse and separated the water above the expanse from the water below it. God called the expanse “Sky.” Evening came, and morning followed—the second day. Then God said, “Waters under the sky: be gathered into one place! Dry ground: appear!” So it was. God called the dry ground “Earth” and the gathering of the waters “Sea.” And God saw that this was good.

       …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. –Gen. 1:3-10, 26-27, The Inclusive Bible. 

       Here we see that the creation account contains many pairs that seem like binaries— dark/light; day/night, sky/sea, dry land/water. Yet each of these binaries is, in fact, not a binary but rather polarities. 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 everything at eye level, but rather is a figure of speech to outline 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.

       Tara Soughers writes, “Binary pairs are useful for simplifying the large amounts of information 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 identify so many places where we see this at work—where we categorize people into binary categories of white or black, immigrant or native born, rich or poor, conservative or liberal. This tendency to think in binaries, especially with groups of people— to divide into "us" and "them", appears to be hard-wired in us. It feels unified because it reinforces group identity. We feel less alone as we are part of a group of people who are "like us." It is comfortable.

       But the irony is obvious: we may feel unified when we are surrounded by “us,” but the fact is, that tendency to categorize only leads to greater division and hatred. So one of the gifts of trans and nonbinary inclusion is that it pushes us to think beyond us and them. We'll see more of the gifts of inclusion in a later session. 

       Soughers writes: “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…

       “Perhaps the whole idea of binaries—either/or categories—is not something God created, but something humans created to make the world a more comprehensible place. The trouble with making things more comprehensible, however, is that in doing so, we often ignore people or things that do not it into our preconceived ideas.

       “When we find examples that do not fit our neatly defined categories, we have a choice: we can broaden our definitions in order to include the new examples, or we can exclude those things or creatures that do not quite fit. While categorizing is a powerful tool for organizing information, it is only partially useful in describing our world, for the world contains a variety of things that do not fit neatly in our categories.”      

       Our experience in the world and in creation is that our gender identity does seems to be innate—something God created—including people who don't fit the gender binary. Returning to our creation story, Gen. 1:31 concludes the chapter by proclaiming that God saw all that was made, and it was very good. Let us lean into the goodness of God's diverse and beautiful creation!

Homework assignment/ look ahead at next week 

Hartke encourages us to spend time this week in prayer, 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. Optional: read Hartke ch. 6.

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.