Tuesday, September 22, 2015

What kind of future?

So. My wife and her (supposedly) most understanding family member saw fit to remind me of my place in their hearts with this little gem.
*sigh*
(this is going to be quite long, but you can't say this right in 20 words)

I'm not even going to get into an angry argument, and I'm asking right now for my actual friends to not go there either, however tempted you may be. But I did want to share it to make this very important point:

It is absolutely and unequivocally true that my transition has caused her indescribable pain and loss. She seems to believe that I can't imagine that or simply don't care (if I simply didn't care I'd have seized the moment and ran at the first of the year or, more exactly, left empty handed years ago, but nevermind that) but she couldn't be more wrong. I'm far more aware of the pain she's feeling than her or any of her allies could possibly hope to understand of what they would have me accept and live with, moreover, I doubt seriously any of them even think they need to try. Yes, I do in fact understand what she's feeling - a loss she would feel in one form or another whichever solution to me no-win dilemma I might have chosen (or could chose now) - but more than that I know how and why we got to this place, and THAT is the reason for this post, not any desire to hold her and her supporter up to criticism.

Here's why:

Because I, and everyone else in my generation trans or not were raised and formed in a world which was almost completely ignorant on the condition I'm dealing with. Even the "experts" were just reacting to outward signs and flailing for explanations, often getting it wrong - one of the most notorious explanations of it was entirely wrong. BECAUSE I was completely ignorant, I was SHAMED into fighting an impossible battle to deny this reality. BECAUSE the world was ignorant, it doubled and tripled the shame. Reveled in it. Wallowed in it. Took great pleasure in humbling and humiliating the very few of us willing to endure it in order to live the truth of their heart and soul. Those of us ashamed and afraid not only saw that shaming but even learned to do it to our own selves.

And so, like so many others, I tried desperately to "do the right thing" - hide my shameful secret and be "normal" - dare to fall in love, have the temerity to get married and have kids, and (in my case) become the very sort of shamer that had made me hate myself. And because I dared. Because I thought, honestly thought, that being what I am with something that could be controlled, repressed, repented of, I involved an innocent and unsuspecting woman in my life. I made her promises - in LOVE - and in all sincerity, that I'm not able to keep.

Because. !. Was. Lied. To.

Lied to by the whole world I lived in, the whole culture that surrounded me, all of it. Jokes like the one in this image were "everybody knows" and "common sense" and THAT is the lie. THAT is the shaming that everyone like me learned from their mother's knee and THAT LIE is why she is in pain tonight. Because of THAT lie, I put her in a no-win situation right along beside me.

It is an absolute abomination that one so desperately hurt BY that l;ie now thinks it makes sense to stand among those trying to push that same lie on a new generation of trans people.

You know what that means? A whole new generation that feels shamed and disputed and degraded by even those very people they trust most to love them; a new generation of parents ashamed of and abusive towards their own kids because they feel shamed to have a child who's trans; a whole new generation of people who, far more than half the time, will try to take their own lives rather than endure it (and far too often succeed)...and a whole new generation of trans people who will subject themselves to THAT LIE and try to "do the right thing" and fight it...and they will dare to fall in love...have the temerity to marry and have kids..and someday come to the breaking point and do to some other woman just what was done to my wife.

And yet in every single word and act in which she, and those who support her, and those who simply don't understand, and those who are still mis-informed about what the Bible says - all with the best of intentions! - that seeks to shame, humiliate, and mock trans people, all those well intentioned folks join hands with the hateful and mean-spirited folks to ensure that some innocent woman in the years to come will be hurting just like she is now.

And the worst part of it all is - she can't conceive that any of what I just wrote is true.

Those of you who REALLY want to be good, do good, treat people like you think Christ would have you treat them - please, for the love of the God whom you serve, STOP POSTING HATEFUL, CALLOUS, COLD-HEARTED BULLSHIT LIKE THIS!!!! When you do, it says far more about your heart than it does about mine.

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Face Off

Less than 3 months and already another blog post? What's the world coming to?! My stars and garters!

So let me preface these comments with a very prominent disclaimer: I'm not in these comments attacking or disputing the existence of God as you - if you - believe him to exist. Those who know me know I've grown up in mostly Southern Baptist Churches, and those who know me reasonably well are aware there's still a license to preach in a box 'round here somewhere with the name I no longer claim on it. I can't say that I am, any longer, a fan of man-made orthodoxy. While the Bible says that Scripture is not of any private interpretation, it also says that each person gives an account to their own master, not to other people.

I have spent some time sorting out whether the things I believe are supported more by Scripture or by religious tradition, and that alone can cut away a lot of weeds, but also, I've tried to re-examine some on-the-surface irrational things and reconcile them with a point of view that doesn't go so far as "made-up-by-sheepherders." To the traditionalist believer, it's "falling away" at best, to the skeptic it's rationalization. Be that as it may, I still believe there is a real deity behind the New Testament concept of God  (i.e. a God of grace, not a god of law). But for the purposes of the rhetorical conceit of this post, I'm laying that aside. In some points here I'm saying "you" or "they" when technically it would be correct to say "we" but I think that would get confusing.

Hat-tip, by the way, to Jillian Page for her post which inspired this one - hopefully I can elaborate on the thought, and not just re-word it.

One of the fundamental premises of Traditionalist (i.e. Fundamentalists, Evangelical, Orthodox Catholics, Mormons and most Charismatics - as distinct from all Christians) hold about trans people is that we suffer a "delusion." Basing their entire concept of sex/gender on genitalia (except when they style themselves clever and bring in DNA) they insist it is self evident that one who believes they are authentically the gender that doesn't align with their genital sex is delusional. But as Page points out, there's a big elephant in that room - they believe in something much less objectively proevable than I do.

Go back 30 years and it would have been hard to say that. Until recent innovations in medical technology, claiming that a transsexual was "born that way" was necessarily a highly subjective claim. Most of the available evidence to be analyzed relied on the patients (collective) account of their internal perception of self, and the manner in which they dealt with it - and that reaction too subjective in that it couldn't be divorced from environmental factors (for example, in 1980 it wasn't the same thing to come out in California - difficult - as it was to come out in Mississippi - virtually impossible). It's only in the last couple of decades that we begin to accumulate objective observable evidence that there is a biological basis for the condition.

But that evidence has now been observed and the database of such is constantly growing. It is not entirely conclusive how it happens yet, though there are some pretty good hypotheses, but few things in science are conclusive. So the claim of the trans person is no longer entirely based on subjective "feelings" and, moreover, as more and more trans kids come to light the more popular "alternate explanations" for transsexualism can be objectively demonstrated to not be credible. In short, my so-called "delusion" has scientific credibility that is objective and not dependent on my subjective opinion.

Now contrast this to any system of organized theistic religion you might wish to name. For example, the religion I was brought up in. That system of belief holds that the Earth and all creation are considerably younger than the scientific evidence would suggest (by many orders of magnitude), it holds that the origin and history of life (as we know it today)  was radically different than what the science seems to suggest, and from there it holds one long series of claims after another than to the rational mind seem insanely improbable (i.e. that it's possible to cover the entire surface of this planet with water for just one example) and along the way cite the infallibility of a book they then have to work very hard to explain on some points (the idea that the sun stood still in the sky, for example, or that God commanded a pack of bears to kill children for mocking the baldness of his prophet). Yes, it is possible to rationalize much if not all of that and not kill the whole point of reading the book at all, but what I mean is the things that are held without being explained away (for example, taking the Noah story at face value rather than as a fable with a moral lesson.

Beyond that, the whole Christian experience, in the best light, could - by the unbeliever - be called delusional. You'd believe, at a minimum, that there is a being whom no one has ever seen, and for whom all evidence is subjective; a being wo, among many other puzzling aspects, was able to both pray to himself and answer his own prayers, to sacrifice himself to himself and resurrect himself from death; to whom the prayers of the righteous are persuasive even when they pray for contradictory outcomes; one who is always to be praised if we survive the tornado but not to be faulted when our neighbor does not. Some of you believe that being placed under the water for a few seconds is the difference between eternal bliss or eternal pain to name one of a hundred variants of ritualistic behavior, none of which have any objective evidence for their claims. Heck, the very claim of eternal bliss/damnation has no objective evidence.

But it is nevertheless passionately believed. To many people, including many who once believed it, that's the ultimate in "delusional" and yet it is THOSE people who MOST passionately condemn what they see as "delusion" in the trans person.

Am I arguing that religious beliefs ARE delusional? No, I'm not. Rather, I'm arguing that if the Traditionalist critic of trrans people is evaluated according to the very calculus they wish to apply to trans people, they score FAR worse on the "potentially delusional" tally. I'm suggesting that given that their belief system, AND MINE, is based on a big steaming pile of subjective experiences and speculative conclusions, that any such person is poorly positioned to question the legitimacy of my gender identity claims. Put another way, if you want to believe that the Earth was created in a week six thousand years ago, and you want to believe that any day now the true church will be Ruptured out in advance of Seven Years of Tribulation and you want to believe that all of humanity save eight people were destroyed in a flood - GREAT! Knock yourself out. That belief alone does me nor anyone else any harm (there are religious beliefs that do others harm, but lets not get too far into the weeds with the comparison).  I'll not call you delusional or try to get in your way.

BUT

You are not then in a position to criticize people who have actual objective tangible scientific evidence
in their favor as being victims of delusion who must be saved from their own error. At least have a little bit of intellectual consistency and self awareness.














Tuesday, March 17, 2015

About Zoey Tur and Misplaced Priorities

So, we're apparently at it again. Once again some high profile trans person is going off the reservation appointed for us by the arbiters of what trans people are allowed to say and think. I've tried to confine my remarks on this to short (for me) replies on various sites where the brouhaha is...brou-ing? But at some point their gets to be more to say than can be confined to a tweet or a Facebook post.  So knowing that (a) hardly anyone pays attention to my blog (and why should they when I post so seldom?) and (b) if they do this will catch hell, let me wade in anyway.

First, a disclaimer: We all disagree with everyone at some point on some score. Rare indeed is the valued friend in the trans community, or respected "leader" with whom I haven't disagreed on some point. I'm absolutely certain Zoey Tur has said or implied something lately which I simply don't accept. This post is NOT about defending Zoey Tur from measured and appropriate disagreement. However, the ongoing controversy over Tur brings to light (again) some other unsettling realities that need addressing. If you read this as a fangirl defense of Zoey you are missing the point.

I'll taken it as a given that anyone who's read this far is at least somewhat familiar with the nature of the dust up but I do have a few followers who are not tuned into the massive soap opera that is internal politics among trans celebrities. By the way, for clarity, by "celebrities" I mean both celebrated folks who have transitioned and thus have platforms, AND those celebrated as trans "leaders" whether or not they enjoyed any notoriety previously - I'm not prepared to concede to the latter group the title of "leader" whatever their self professed qualifications.

Zoey Tur is a national correspondent for Inside Edition who has been employed in journalism for decades before her transition (I'm not going into the whole business of what her name was and what she did, other than to note she has experience and is not just a "famous face" fake correspondent. She's transitioned relatively recently, as compared to some of the other celebrated trans folks, and that provides ammo to her critics in that she's perceived as "wet behind the ears" when publicly addressing trans related news, as she is being repeatedly called upon to do.

So, first the news story. In a Planet Fitness location in Midland Michigan, a person since identified as Carlotta Slodowska entered the women's locker room, s/he says, to stow her coat and purse, and later again to retrieve them. Unbeknownst to her at the time, another patron named Yvette Cormier saw her, clocked her as a male, and protested to management who told her Carlotta was within company policy. Cormier, having failed to receive satisfaction proceeded to spend a week harassing other patrons warning them about the "man"(?) allowed to enter the ladies locker room. Finally PF had enough and terminated Cormier's membership because of this behavior, so she turned to the media. It was only then that Carlotta realizes it was sh/e being discussed and, naturally, went to the media as well.

Now there are SO many layers to this initial story even before we get to Tur's remarks. There's "pretty privilege," i.e. if Carlotta had been pretty and passable this never happens; there's the fact that Cormier acted badly regardless of whether her concern was valid; there's the point that Carlotta purposely avoided being in any state of undress in the locker room; there's the fact that advocates tend to latch on to any story, no matter how problematic, that advances the narrative - and lest you misunderstand I'm a vocal proponent of private-space access by sincere gender identity so don't think I take issue with that goal - but there's the rub: it IS a problematic situation. Enter Zoey Tur who had the temerity to notice and in so doing she tread on the third rail of trans advocacy.

Seperatism, and/or the accusation thereof.

Of course, Now I have to divert and provide background on THAT for the uninitiated. Did I mention this stuff was complex? Okay, how do I make this brief but clear? Within the broader transgender community, there are some competing schools of thought - with different shades of extreme in each. In the broadest terms, the great majority of the politically active (that is, those who control the accepted narrative via media access or widely popular writing) religiously adhere to the concept of "transgender" as one unifying term applying without distinction to any gender non-conforming behavior, condition, or presentation.  "Conforming" in this case would be to societal expectations associated with your "biological sex" (I will NOT go down THAT rabbit hole or we'll be here for 5,000 words). This has the political advantage of maximizing the number of affected persons, and the emotional advantage of avoiding the possibility one might inadvertently marginalize someone.  It is, however, not as simple as that.

The minority view (at least among those with a platform) is that the expression "transgender umbrella" ought to be a bit more of a literal analogy than the majority folks seem to apply it - which is to say that just as varying sorts of people with varying needs may shelter under one umbrella, likewise not everyone under the Transgender Umbrella has the same issues and needs, even if they are of the same value and worth. For example, to use another celebrity name, RuPaul has no need of laws designed to ensure insurance companies cover transition related medical expenses - because he is a self-identified man who has no need to transition, despite his "gender non-conforming" profession.  Different sorts of folks under the umbrella with different sorts of needs. Seems prety common sense, right? But THAT sort of thinking is the third rail of which I spoke.

Enter Zoey Tur.

The touchstone is an interview with Dr. Drew about the aforementioned PF story. You may view the critical portion (for the purposes of her critics) of the interview here.

Let me be clear, I do not personally know if what Tur reported concerning the background of Carlotta Slodowska is correct or not. It's got some traction in online discussions but such discussions tend to be incestuous with a circle of people referencing, ultimately, each other. It is not necessary that the report is true for the point I wish to make to apply - because Tur is not standing accused based on having falsified those claims. Rather, her critics are after her hammer and tong because, they argue, it doesn't matter if they are true. Tur believes that it does matter and, full disclosure, so do I. But I do not write tonight because I agree with that position. Read on.

Tur's comments point out that Carlotta Slodowska identifies in his/her own posts on Facebook and elsewhere as a MAN. Moreover, it seems that many of those posts contain some rather sordid material (as such things are judged) of the sort that the majority advocates had rather not exist. But they do, according to Tur, exist. Like it or not that changes the complexion of the situation. Let's acknowledge that not a few trans women came to a place of transition via a journey through "I'm just a crossdresser" denial, and let's also acknowledge that a lot of people, trans or no, have more than a little bit of kink in their present or past. But Carlotta Slodowska has, we are told, a post history that reeks of the ugliest stereotypes thrown at trans women by our critics both among radical feminists and Pharisaical Traditionalist Christian activists. If Tur had not reported the evidence on that they surely would still have become very public.

The uncomfortable (for the majority position) but logical truth is that if a self-identified male, particularly one with a publicly displayed track record of fetishization of crossdressing is proudly defended as entitled to the protections which are absolutely necessary for transsexual women, then he becomes Case Study A1 for the political movement to keep trans women out of sex segregated spaces for women. Zoey Tur had the temerity to state the politically incorrect but obvious conclusion. Let's think back to the umbrella analogy above. A male-to-female (or vice versa, but we all know who's the accused threat here) transsexual who is in transition or has transitioned has a legitimate, non-negotiable NEED to access the ladies room (bath or locker) for a host of reasons which one would hope needn't be explained. A self-identified male, crossdresser part time or no, does NOT have a NEED to do so. One may argue it's best to allow it and that's a discussion that can be had but I speak of health and safety need of a sort that can't be addressed any other way. Again, remember, the critics are not saying Zoey Tur was wrong about Carlotta Slodowska's self-professed identity, but that she's wrong about whether it matters. But on tat point, at least, she's right - it does matter.

We are a very tiny minority of people (even under the very broad "transgender" definition) and we are asking the massive majority to revise a deeply set cultural tradition in order to accommodate our health and safety needs. They have the political power to squash us like a bug and legislators in some half dozen states (and growing) are attempting to do just that.  We have the high moral ground but the grip on it is exceedingly tenuous.  Already the "pro-family" groups (and the "gender critical radfems") are tripping over themselves to point to this story and say "See? See? We TOLD you these policies would bring out the perverts!!!" I'm not saying Carlotta Slodowska is a "pervert" by any means, but HE says "I am a MAN" and then proudly displays his kink in public, there's no other way it could have ever played out.

Still, Zoey is considered off the reservation for having reached the obvious conclusion: we don't need that kind of help! Since my own transition I have tried to educate my friends and acquaintances in small town Mississippi about trans people, starting them from a knowledge base of essentially zero since almost none of them had ever met a trans person before me. Universally, what they THOUGHT a trans woman is reflects pretty much exactly what Carlotta Slodowska has said of himself. That perception will never lead to our very real medical and safety concerns as transsexual women being addressed. Tur nevertheless has become a pariah among the "right" people because she violated the cardinal rule that insists that all transgender people are exactly alike.

Thus, this battle become a proxy war for the real fight - the Crusade to destroy "Seperatism" (or any perception thereof). But that war itself is misguided. There are those out there, a fringe, who think that "legitimate" transsexuals are superior to, and ought distance themselves, from "lesser" transgender people such as crossdressers. Maybe Tur is one of them (I've not heard her claim that) or maybe she's not, but admitting that there is a distinction, a difference in nature and needs, between transsexuals and crossdressers (or other parts of the transgender community) is not a case for seperatism but a case for clear communication and wise goals. We don't need ordinances that make it possible for RuPaul to pee in the ladies room, we need ordinances that protect people with actual female gender identities to do so.

After all, have we not built the entire case on gender identity? Do not proposed laws and policies routinely say "sincerely held and consistent gender identity" or words to that effect?  Now comes a self-identified MALE and yet our "leaders" rally and say "it doesn't matter!!" of course it matters! It's what the whole thing was built on! Who are we to deny Carlotta Slodowska's self-reported identity because it furthers our otherwise worthy agenda? Have we not then become hypocrites?

It can be rightly argued that crossdrerssers, while presenting as females, are also in danger in men's rooms -  and from that further argue this justifies defending Slodowska as entitled here. There's a discussion to be had there, but I've gone too long already to divert into detailing it. But even allowing that point of view, that means the one who holds it and Tur have a DIFFERENCE OF OPINION not a difference on the facts. The crusade against Tur is about suppressing OPINIONS that do not align with the script. Tur has expressed opinions on other subjects (all the guns are being brought to bear now so a lot of stuff is suddenly appearing that was not discussed a month ago) which are now being eviscerated, and on some of those I strictly disagree with her. She's also being called out on points which are lightly if at all supported (a lot of yelling, not a lot of links). IF all the accusations were true, I'd have many points of disagreement with her.

Most notably, it's accused that she's saying only post-op trans women are legitimately trans. I'm 90% certain that's not her position and wasn't her intent but if it were, I'd be very unhappy with that and would happily debate her on the point.

But this whole business isn't really about any specific comment, it's about the Proxy War. Plus a couple of side dishes of human weakness. Tur went off script, she acknowledged that there's a difference between someone with a female gender identity and someone with a male gender identity and that smacks of Seperatism. Layered onto this ugly beginning is a war of competing egos, arrogant people calling other arrogant people arrogant for not changing their minds and agreeing with them, "veteran" activists resentful of "newbie" faces in front of the camera, those without the financial wherewithal (or prevented by other circumstance) to have GRS resentful of the one who has and looking suspiciously to see if she's lording over them (maybe she is?).

It's all very sordid and ugly. But it's worse than that and this, at long last, is the reason I wrote so much on the subject tonight: it's distracting.

As I noted, in state after state legislatures are moving forward bills specifically targeting trans people. Culturally we have never been more visible and we stand on the ragged edge of moving towards general acceptance, or towards tremendous and vicious backlash - WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO ATTACK EACH OTHER!

Disagree with Zoey Tur? Great! Hell, maybe I do too. but why oh why do we take our eyes off the ball and start trying to destroy her? Damn let's try to destroy Tony Perkins or somebody instead. If you disagree with her say so. I'm perfectly sure Dr. Drew would be happy to book a guest with a famous face who could explain to him in great detail how she disagreed with Tur. But do well to remember that disagreements WILL HAPPEN. Not every Democrat agrees with every other Democrat, not every Methodist agrees with every other Methodist, not ever Latino agrees with every other Latino. The question is - what will you do wen that disagreement arises? State your case, or angrily try to destroy the one with whom you disagree? Disagreement and the vibrant exchange of ideas is GOOD. Group-think is NOT. Right now many higher profile trans activists have seemingly become devoted to the group think above all else and as a result we are putting the worst possible face out there just when the spotlight is brightest and the opposition most motivated.

Please be careful, you leaders, where your priorities are. While your petty rivalries run rampant, all us peons still have a lot of REAL needs to address. I don't ask you to agree, i don't ask you to keep silent about your disagreement, but I do ask, no plead, for CIVILITY. Zoey Tur, however legion her faults may be in your view, is not your enemy and if you have made it your mission to destroy her it is YOU who are off mission.










Monday, July 14, 2014

Clobbering the Clobber Verses

[this content is a re-posting of, and expansion upon, a couple of blog entries which I posted elsewhere that I have cross-posted here in order to expand upon the thoughts which were constrained by size limitations over there.]

Let me offer a disclaimer at the very beginning of this column: if you are a hard-core skeptic when it comes to the subject of religion, this is probably not the best reading material for you. I do not presume to entertain the question here of whether or not any given religious view is correct. Rather I want to take this time to speak to those who do believe, particularly within the context of Protestant evangelical religion, and speak to them within the context of the faith which they hold to be true. If that's not you, I apologize but I probably don't have anything for you this time.

In the wake of the vote by the Southern Baptist Convention (which is the denomination in which I spent most of my life) this month in which they took the time to express their formal disapproval of transgender people and medical or civil actions which  support that which they consider to be "delusion" or "mental illness," I have been involved in not a few conversations with traditionalist Christians who approve of that action. As always in that sort of conversation, my foundational argument is that you should first make an effort to prove that the thing that you are condemning is, in fact, sinful before you can call on the church and Christians to disapprove of it. Most of those I interact with don't even try, but those who do will usually first resort to the familiar "anti-gay" verses which forces you to disabuse  them of the idea that being trans is essentially being "Super Gay." if you can't get them to see the error in that concept than they are likely beyond hope of reason. But if you can than they usually will still turn to a very limited set of references which each have simple and specific rebuttals. There are essentially four major "clobber verses" that come up in these sorts of conversations. two in the Old Testament and to in the New.  I'm going to take them (almost)in order and gives you the answer which debunks each one as a weapon against trans people. If you are feeling the mental and emotional pressure that comes from having your fellow believers reject you and struggle with whether or not they are right and you're wrong, then this is for you.

Genesis 1-2

Various verses from this chapter might be cited but they all are used in some way to support the idea of the inflexibility of the original created binary order: male and female sexes and gender roles. The argument is that since transition (or cross gender behavior) violates God's intended order it is therefore sinful. This has two parallel faults, both of which reflect the fact that those who cite this verse are not consistently apply their "reasoning" to other aspects of human life and activity. First, if you're making the argument as many of us do that being trans is a biological condition present from birth, then you force them to explain why other birth conditions which deviate from the creation story (which would be pretty much all of them) are not subject to the same condemnation. However, many of them will immediately dismiss the claim that this is a biological condition from birth but that still does not get them out of the box. The reason for this is essentially the same reasoning, logically, as in the above case: that while they condemn this "behavior" they do not apply the same logic to other areas of human behavior, the most obvious example of which I will save for another passage coming up soon.

Deuteronomy 22:5

A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

 You might also get a citation here from some other book of the Torah, but any citation here is going to be in reference to cross-dressing, basically "a man shall not wear that which pertains to a woman, or woman that which pertains to a man, it is an abomination". The problem here is should be obvious: inconsistent application. The places were such a verse appears always have within the same chapter another verse which they have no such passion for enforcing, including versus about clothing.


11 “You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.

 Indeed, in the same chapter it speaks of stoning women who were not found to be virgins when they married, and forcing a woman who is raped to marry her rapist.

20 “But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.


28 “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.


Oddly, I've yet to find a modern Christian who is enthusiastic about enforcing that one.
Moreover, this introduces the problem of variant interpretations. One of the best arguments against being overbearing in your application of your particular theological interpretation is the reality that not even all Christians agree on practically any important theological subject (and on the scale of theological subjects this one is certainly not that important). Of course it's obvious that if various denominations can agree on the major points of doctrine, there should be room for disagreement on the minor points. How does that apply here? Simple. In many charismatic denominations, they cite this verse as support for the concept of barring their female membership from wearing pants at all. Any Christian who does not believe that that is a valid interpretation, and yet respects the right to disagree therefore obliges himself to respect your right to disagree about the legitimacy of applying this verse to you.

One overriding point in these sorts of conversations is that the person you are discussing with need not be convinced that their view is wrong, merely that others may read the same passage and draw a different conclusion and that the modern Christian tradition is to respect each others right to disagree on doctrinal questions. One of the wisest acts of the Founding Fathers was to recognize that there was a difference between being a moral people and enforcing by force of law any sectarian doctrine upon those who held a different doctrine. That is a principle which in most realms of doctrine even the most ardent evangelical implicitly understand what seem to forget when it comes to LGB /T people.  If you find yourself in one of these discussions remember that you don't have to change their doctrine so long as they are willing to apply this principle.

 For the purpose of clarity, I'm going to reverse the order in which I discuss the New Testament two because the second one if taken in order of appearance in Scripture is very minor but the first one is the one which they are most likely to hang their argument on and the one that requires the most discussion.

1Corinthians 6:9

 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals...

This is a citation which seldom comes up because basically it's only one word and the word which is subject to interpretation. That alone is enough to question the legitimacy of their argument, however there is more. The King James translation is the primary source for the use of that word for the Greek word in the original text, and there is strong critical evidence that the word is a poor choice for the concept being described in the original language. There is not space here to get into the textual criticism discussion but suffice it to say that there is tons of room to question whether or not they word "effeminate" is a word that even belongs in the Bible at all if properly translated. Now, let's move on to the elephant in the room.

Matthew 19

3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7 They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery”

This is passage from that key chapter which is supposedly, in their view, the New Testament confirmation of the Genesis 1 creation account I referenced last time. According to their logic, since Genesis refers to a strictly binary creation and Jesus in the New Testament affirms that model of creation therefore we can assume that any deviation from that model is not allowed.
However their own citation defeats the proposition because in this very passage Jesus describes a circumstance wherein it is permissible to divorce (and later in the New Testament Paul will expand upon this) and yet it is self-evident that the pre-fall creation model made no provision for divorce. So in the passage they cite, Jesus affirms that what is permissible in the eyes of God after the fall does not necessarily have to align to the perfect creation before the fall. But wait, there's more! Let's continue to read in chapter 19.

10 The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

Let's be clear, it is too much of an assumption to suggest that the eunuch in biblical times was a direct equivalent to the modern trans person. There may have occasionally been some parallels but not in most cases so far as we know. However, the passages relevant all the same. Let me explain. The traditionalist will argue that it is sinful for a person to actively either by conduct or by actual physical "mutilation" deviate from the creation model.
However we know as a certain fact that those which the Bible refer to has "eunuch" were men who, either by nature ("from their mothers womb" i.e. intersex persons), or by some physical alteration ("made by men") or by the way they choose to live ("made themselves") were people whose lives deviating significantly from the pre-fall creation binary model of manhood. And Jesus references these people without any hint of condemnation. You might also note that in the Old Testament the prophet Isaiah specifically speaks positively of these individuals.

Oh by the way, one more bonus point just to seal the deal at the end of your discussion: to the one who says that there is no way that God would affirm the surgical alteration of human genitals from the form in which they were born, you need only answer with a single word – circumcision.

In summary, not only does the Bible not, properly understood, say anything negative about transsexual individuals either directly or by implication, but indeed the only reference from which an implication might be drawn is a positive reference.

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

A Remonstrance Against Resolution #9

Some hours ago, as I write this, the Southern Baptist Convention,  in 2014 annual meeting, adopted a resolution specifically condemning transgender individuals and advocating against laws and policies which would protect their equality. The resolution was written and submitted by an associate professor at an SBC institution named Denny Burk (along with a co-author Andrew Walker). As a lifelong member of the Southern Baptist Convention as well as a lifelong transsexual (howbeit only about six years self accepting) I felt both qualified and compelled to weigh in with a rebuttal.

Unfortunately I did not have the opportunity to present my thoughts in any form which would be accessible to voting members before the convention since Burk and Walker seem to have made a point of not publicizing the resolution until the last minute before the convention convened. In light of that I'm left with remonstrating against it in the past tense fully aware of that my arguments will be futile for a generation or more and that the convention has yet again embarrassed itself by standing on the traditions of men (rather than the word of God) in light of new scientific information. I do not presume to live to see them rectify their error.

The complete text of the resolution can be found on Burk's blog. I've decided to reply to the ill-informed resolution in the same format in which it was originally presented. Sadly it will never come to a vote.


WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention considered a resolution on transgender identity at their 2014 meeting, and

WHEREAS, this resolution was intended to express the mind of the convention regarding transgender identity and the legal standing of transgender persons, and

WHEREAS, this resolution was overwhelmingly passed with few if any dissenting votes, and

WHEREAS, the resolution was made public knowledge only in the last few days preceding the meeting thus forestalling critical contrary opinion, and

WHEREAS, the resolution acknowledges the existence of certain biological conditions collectively known as intersex conditions which represent an imperfection present from birth which results in an atypical arrangement of gender specific biological characteristics, and

WHEREAS, these atypical birth conditions are doctrinally understood to be results of the Fall (as mentioned in the aforementioned resolution) which corrupted God's perfect creation (Genesis 3:1–24; Romans 8:20), and

WHEREAS, there are other atypical birth conditions which affect the human brain (e.g. autism et al), and

WHEREAS, science has well-established the human brain is physically and functionally different in the female and in the male thus making the biology of the brain sex specific in the same way that the gonads are, and

WHEREAS, the implication of the foregoing is inescapably that it is not only possible but logically inevitable that certain individuals will be born with atypical birth conditions which produce conflict between the sex specific characteristics of the brain and the sex specific characteristics of the gonads, and

WHEREAS, the resolution does not acknowledge this logic but rather proceeds from the flawed assumption that gender dysphoria represents a condition which is "psychologically ambiguous" rather than biologically ambiguous, and

WHEREAS, the resolution fails to acknowledge the distinction between gender dysphoria and other gender nonconforming behavior (e.g. drag queens et al) in that the former is biologically driven and the latter is a lifestyle choice, and

WHEREAS, neither the authors of the resolution, the resolution committee, nor the messengers to the convention sought or received the wise counsel of those professionally trained in transgender issues nor that of those Christian brothers and sisters who've dealt with and are dealing with gender dysphoria, and

WHEREAS, the Bible says that in the multitude of counselors is found safety (Proverbs 11:14), and

WHEREAS, the Bible nowhere directly condemns or strongly implies the condemnation of transsexual transition, and

WHEREAS, the Bible mandates genital altering surgery by God's command for his people Israel (Genesis 21:4, etc.), and

WHEREAS, the Bible mentions eunuchs in both Old and New Testament passages, none in a negative light (Isaiah 54:3-5, etc), and

WHEREAS, while eunuchs are not transgender in the modern sense, they are widely understood to fall outside of the distinctly masculine and feminine roles as ordained by God as part of the created order (Genesis 2:18, 21–24; 1 Corinthians 11:7–9; Ephesians 5:22–33; 1 Timothy 2:12–14 ), and

WHEREAS, Jesus Christ stated that some eunuchs are made by men (Matthew 19:12), and

WHEREAS, neither Christ or any other passage in the Bible condemns that practice, and

WHEREAS, the Bible mentions God's goodwill toward eunuchs (Isaiah 3-5, Matt. 19:12 and

WHEREAS, the American Medical Association strongly supports prescription of transition supporting treatment for individual suffering from gender dysphoria as a medical and biological necessity, and

WHEREAS, the exclusive support for condemnation of an transsexual transition flows from human tradition, and

WHEREAS, Jesus Christ condemned the human failing of substituting the traditions of men in place of the word of God, and

WHEREAS, the word of God throughout the New Testament counsels loving compassion for hurting people, and

WHEREAS, due to the severe condemnation of transsexual persons by the traditions of our culture transsexual people suffer high degrees of disabling depression such that 41% of self- identified transgender persons have attempted suicide, and

WHEREAS, there is no way to account for the number of souls lost to successful suicide attempts over the centuries because transgender people realized they would face the wrath of condemnation by even those closest to them, and

WHEREAS, religious people, particularly conservative religious people, were at the forefront of that condemnation, and encouraged that reaction by others, and

WHEREAS, this distress was further escalated by lacking legal protections against discrimination in employment and housing among other critical concerns, and

WHEREAS, the aforementioned resolution serve to encourage further societal condemnation of transgender individuals and to call for the continuation of policies which allowed discrimination against these individuals, now therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the convention acted hastily, unwisely, and without the benefit of a wide range of counsel in the passing of said resolution, and be it further

RESOLVED, that it will reflect well upon God's church for the resolution to be rescinded and for Christians everywhere to acquaint themselves with an the facts concerning this condition and extend a loving hand towards those individuals inside and outside the church who are struggling in with this condition, and be at further

RESOLVED, that transgender people who conduct themselves otherwise in a manner consistent with biblical sexual morality are not at odds with that morality by the virtue of transsexual transition, and be it further

RESOLVED, that in the spirit of equality, and having learned the lessons of history that the convention fully support laws and policies, including and especially in Baptist run institutions churches and schools, which prevent unfair discrimination against these struggling people.


Saturday, April 5, 2014

Simple Logic

[re-posted from a comment section I replied to - I thought it worthy of preservation]

You claim to be educated, but you make false analogies and offer simplistic reasoning which suggests possibly otherwise. In any case, almost no one who isn’t directly involved in this phenomena is educated ON THIS SUBJECT. The amount of ignorance afield in the general population is staggering to contemplate.
That said, an educated person should be acquainted with the need for, and the methodology of, clear reasoning. So let me offer you a logical thesis, based only on facts you already know and accept, for why transsexuals are legitimately what they claim to be (for this purpose lets lay aside drag queens and so forth – I speak of people with actual incongruity between their brain and their gonads)

1. Intersex people exist. this needs little explanation since you acknowledged it earlier, however others may read this so let me briefly elaborate. Babies are born in which we may visibly and scientifically identify that some gender specific characteristics of one sex, and some of the other sex.. what was once referred to as “hermaphrodite” and now is called intersex. birth “defects” can and do affect sex-specific organs in a way which produces a “mismatch”

2. Babies are born with rare but legitimate conditions which affect their brain in a way which deviates from the statistical norm. for example, autism. Birth “defects” can and do affect the brain.

3. The human brain is known to be a sex specific organ, which is to say that the make brain is physically and functionally different from the female brain.

In light of these three firmly established and non-controversial realities, it is not only logically possible, but indeed logically inevitable that some babies, on rare occasions, will be born with birth “defects” which affect the sex-specific construction of their body in those areas of the brain which are sex-specific. in plain terms, a female brain in a male-gonad body, or vice versa.

We even have some pretty solid hypothesis options for how this happens. Science has demonstrated that every fetus is female from conception, and further that the potentially male fetus is masculinized via hormone “washes” which happen twice during pregnancy, at two separate times, one affecting the brain and one affecting the gonadal sex. It is a perfectly reasonably hypothesis to suspect that something occasionally goes wrong with that process resulting in transsexual conditions. it doesn’t take any sort of wild speculation, or any sort of wishful thinking about some as yet undiscovered gene or combination of genes (albeit genetics may play SOME role) in order to account for the outcomes we see.

There’s only two major reasons why any of this isn’t considered self-evident common sense by the general population: (1) religious traditions; and (2) the fact that the condition isn’t visible to the naked eye (as likewise not a few other “defects” of the brain are not readily visible) and some folks just refuse to acknowledge anything they cannot see.
Neither of which are positions which reflect well on one who professes to be educated. I don’t really expect to change the views of the irrationally biased, but I do think the case is strong for those who are interested in truth rather than tradition. I have no idea which side of that line you stand on.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

An Open Letter to "Jurist"

 To whom it may concern:

In reference to the column posted by Jurist here, by Dean Broyles concerning California bill AB 1266, I'd like to offer some points for your consideration.

The writer is presented as one who brings some expertise to the subject which he is addressing, however the assumption appears to be in considerable error as he seems unaware of several very relevant points. Among those are the following:

1. The law he references (AB 1266) is new but the policy is not. Several major metro school districts in California, as well as many others nationwide including in such conservative leaning areas as Texas, already have in place policies which are substantially the same as that laid out in 1266. Indeed, the board policy of some entire states (Massachusetts, and as has been shown in recent news stories, Colorado to name just two) lay out a very similar policy. Some of these have been in place for close to a decade. 

How is it that our writer is unaware of this? Or does it not support his case for outrage that said policies have not, in fact, resulted in any harm. How can he build a case that 1266 is "dangerous" if he has to admit that after many thousands of occasions in which trans girls share a restroom with cis-girls, nothing harmful has transpired.

2. The writer quotes "facts are stubborn things" and then proceeds to make a fact-claim that directly contradicts ACTUAL scientific evidence. It is scientifically demonstrated that some persons apparently female from birth were in fact born with XY chromosomes, and some persons apparently male from birth were born with XX chromosomes. That's before we note the existence of XXY individuals, and a host of other intersex conditions which defy the writers wooden binary misconceptions. To be clear, I do not speak here of the self perception of gender but of actual biologically observable and verifiable physical facts. Intersex individuals are rare, but then so are transsexuals.

3. Existing policy would again be instructive on his next mistake. He speaks of "transient" opinions, yet all existing policies lay out the terms and conditions for transsexual accommodation and none of them give space to a transient "mood."  The one who professes trans status needs to have a consistent and relatively long term cross-sex presentation and professional consultation supporting. The oft propagated myth of "a kid does not know what he wants" and "boys will claim to be girls for voyeuristic purposes" fail in the face of the history of how these policies are enacted and applied on a daily basis.

4. He waxes at length about what he professes as the lack of scientific evidence that people are born homosexual or trans (how is it that people of his political stripe can never speak of a trans issue without distracting themselves with the obsession with homosexuality, which is not at all relevant to the subject he is ostensibly writing about?) and in so doing ignores a multitude of solid scientific research studieswhich demonstrates that transsexualism is a biological condition present from before birth. See for reference the impressive data base of links collected here:


5. There is a clear, verifiable, documented track record of how these policies work in practice. If the man has questions (dumb questions thought they seem to be) it would seem logical that a trained lawyer would be conversant with the concept of doing the research necessary to find the answers, since it is easily available.

A. As stated above, the policies do not allow for "gender of the day" nonsense that Broyles and his peers imagine.
B. All these policies lay out the stipulations under which an accommodation is granted, involving the input of the parent, health care professionals, and school staff.
C. The "exposed to the genitals" argument is vapid, and silly, given that students do not, one hopes, routinely compare their genitals in the rest room and policies elsewhere make provisions for privacy in the one area in which it might present an issue - the locker room/shower - and this, wisely, both out of sensitivity to the cis child, as well as the trans child (something the author is apparently unaware of - a male-to-female transsexual does not LIKE her penis, WANT her penis, or want anyone to KNOW about it. they are exactly the LAST people one should expect to casually or proudly display their genitalia for viewing). Later in the column the writer advocates for the wisdom of the local school, and here it is in practice - witness the lack of news stories, law suits, or outraged hyperbole citing actual cases of "exposed genitals" in the public schools in which these policies are already in place.
D. Again, he supposes "opportunism" and predicts a bright future for litigators, yet in spite of the standing policy in place in all the major metro school districts in California for years, resulting in tens of thousands of these interactions, PJI still pleads fruitlessly for a plaintiff willing to go to court to challenge AB 1266. One is forced to wonder about the author's connection to reality, not the trans child's.
E. the "religious freedom" argument is as irrelevant as it would have been 50 years ago had some teacher claimed a religious belief that blacks and whites should not mingle. First, teachers et al are asked every day to set aside their religious doctrines - consider the Pentecostal teacher who spends every day teaching girls who cut their hair, wear makeup, and wear pants. Religious liberty is a vapid smokescreen in this context.
To say nothing of the fact that the supposed "doctrine" that a transsexual is sinning is based on a VERY thin Scriptural reed.

6. The false-face pretense that such students should be treated with "love dignity and respect" is contemptible. For the trans person, the ONLY way to treat them with respect is to acknowledge their stated gender identity as valid. you cannot "lovingly" "respect" a person by  asserting you know their mind and they do not.

7. Given that transsexuals number something like .1% of the population, and the majority of those still closeted (sometimes even from themselves) the hyperbole that accommodating the one child in a few thousand who needs it is going to tear down the whole structure of human society is laughable.

In summation, let me offer a very specific conclusion. In reading your "about" page, I find the following passage:

I argue that this column is the very definition of "mere punditry" - Before even completing the second paragraph he's descended into buzz-words and scare tactics. Some examples:

"This dangerous legislation"
"purportedly enlightened"
"what it means to be a "girl" is becoming confused when genetic material is dangerously dumped into the elite culture's gender-blender."
"postmodernism's notions of extreme personal autonomy and radical sexual liberty."
"appear to be heavily influenced by the desire of many radical secular-progressives to..."
"How would they know if the child is being sincere or cleverly perverted..."
"we must vigilantly resist the popular temptation to allow truth and common sense to be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness"


In short, I submit that if the quoted passage from your "About" page is sincere, you have no choice but to withdraw Mr Broyles column, if not actively publish your regret at having published it. I acknowledge that it is reasonable to be concerned about the legal implications of AB1266 and express, rationally, those logical concerns. what Mr Broyles has offered is neither reasonable nor rational, but hyperbolic punditry that fails, in my opinion, to clear the bar you have set for yourselves in terms of content.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,

Tammy Rainey