On Twitter, atheist Jeff Lowder directed the following comments at Christians:
Sincere question for conservative Christians: what is the Biblical case against allowing transgendered persons from transitioning to the gender identity they identify with? What reason(s) do you have which would not also prohibit the correction of birth defects?I can see how Genesis provides support for a (the?) gender binary, but I don't understand the Biblical basis for condemnation of individuals who wish to transition to the gender they most closely identify with.It also assumes that pronouns have to be a reference to anatomical sex rather than gender identity.Besides, does anyone really think it makes sense to refer to a trans person like Laverne Cox (pictured below) using male pronouns? pic.twitter.com/uVDw90MEW2
i) Even from the standpoint of Protestant epistemology, the case against transgenderism isn't confined to Scripture. God gave us a mind, a world, and five senses. So we can supplement biblical arguments with extrabiblical arguments.
ii) Does Jeff mean morally prohibitive or legally prohibitive? For instance, some Christians might say it shouldn't be illegal for consenting adults to "transition", but that ought to disqualify them from church membership, church office, military service, &c.
iii) Conversely, there should be conscience clauses for physicians who disapprove.
iv) "Transitioning" shouldn't be mandated coverage in healthcare plans, although people can pay extra for extra coverage if they so desire. To make it mandatory compels other people to subsidize your perversion.
v) It should be illegal for minors to "transition".
vi) If someone actually suffers from gender dysphoria, hormone therapy, plastic surgery, and/or sex-change operations won't fix that condition, which is psychotic rather than physical. Indeed, "transitioning" aggravates the problem, to judge by suicide rates for those who've "transitioned". So it's not analogous to corrective surgery.
vii) The distinction between gender identity and "anatomical sex" begs the question. Whether we should grant that dichotomy is the very issue in dispute.
viii) Unless Jeff is hopelessly uninformed, he ought to realize that this isn't just about letting transgender people "transition", but about radical accommodations. Unisex public bathrooms and locker rooms. "Transgender women" (i.e. biological men) sharing shelters for battered women. Dissenters fined, fired, or imprisoned. Students punished if they "misgender" a classmate.
ix) Sorry, but the correct term for "Laverne" Cox is "freak". It's demeaning to real women to call a biological man a woman.
x) Trangender ideology is incoherent:
If Laverne is a biological male who wishes to identify as female, then everyone should always treat Laverne like a female. This includes physicians. Hence, if there’s any medical or surgical intervention that has crucial differences in how they work in biological males vs. biological females, then, despite still being biologically male, physicians should only use the medical or surgical intervention suited for a biological female on Laverne since Laverne should be treated as a biological female. Physicians should do this even though using a medical or surgical intervention suited for a biological female on a biological male could significantly harm if not kill Laverne. Is this reasonable?
ReplyDeleteIf the mind is reducible to the brain, if the mind emerges from the brain, if the brain indicates a person is a biological male, but the person’s mind tells them they are female, then why should the mind be believed over the brain when it’s the mind which emerges from the brain, not vice versa? The mind emerging from the brain is unidirectional. Would t the presumption be to favor the physical brain rather than the mind since the physical brain is more fundamental?
DeleteOn the one hand, LGBTQ advocates argue gender identity is fluid. If it’s fluid, then it’s always fluid. One can move from male to female to male to female to male and so on throughout life.
DeleteOn the other hand, if a transgender person has sexual reassignment surgery, say a male becomes female, and this can’t be reversed, then their biological sex is set in stone. However, what if their gender identity changes again? They can’t have surgery again.
Great points, Epistle.
DeleteThanks, Jesse! :)
DeleteThou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
ReplyDeleteA thought comes to mind as I read the above. Suppose...
ReplyDelete~ Joe is born physically a male but says that every part of his being (e.g. emotions, feelings, sense of identity, self-perceptions, etc.) cries out female.
- And since that has been Joe's life experience thus far, he says that he ought to be allowed to transition.
- And furthermore once Joe becomes Jane, the expectation is everyone should now use the appropriate pronouns for to do otherwise would be to commit an act of violence.
It seems subjectivity rules the day here.
However here is a thought that emerges.
~ Whenever I hang out with Joe (now Jane), every part of my being (e.g. my deepest emotions, my innermost feelings, my deep down sense of his identity, my perceptions, etc.) cries out male.
- No matter how hard I try, I am just simply unable to see Joe as Jane. (Do I need some kind of corrective surgery so that I can see Joe as Jane?)
Therefore I ought to be allowed to use he, him, dude, etc. when I refer to Joe. And for you to suggest otherwise would be an act of violence.
Anyway... The photo of Laverne does not help. All the trans people I have met in real life, surgery and clothing notwithstanding look like their biological selves. I mean a photo may convince you that a Jenner or Laverne is a female, but its different when you are actually around them. The biology comes out.