Male and female he created them

[Nikias]

In my struggles to understand accept myself as who am, I've spent a lot of time thinking about my identity in relation to my faith and I find that, reading the bible there really is no scripture that I have noticed that says anything about a persons genital as being the marker of gender.

I've seen it quoted before that "male and female he created them" and it being used as an argument against transition, but my thoughts are this:

Yes, he created both male and female, but perhaps it has nothing to do with our plumbing, just our identity.
Perhaps the real sin is in living contrary to our inherent gender identity, and thus going against Gods plan for our lives.

I'm just throwing this out there. Thoughts anyone?

-Nick

[LordKAT]

A doctor of theology once told me that the bible tells much but there is much more that it doesn't. To believe that there is only male and female discounts the bigender or gender fluid people. The bible may not tell of dinosaurs and yet they existed. There are also animals that change sex, why not people. God made all the animals too.

[Carrie Liz]

I seriously think that people are reading too much into the whole "male and female He created them" line. Yes, he created Adam, a male, and Eve, a female. I don't see that as necessarily saying that those are the only two options. Just that He initially created the first two humans as one man and one woman. Who's to say that He had any problems with people being born with differing gender identities? "Male and female He created them" seems to be more of a narration of what happened, not really making a broad statement saying "EVERYONE must be either male or female." That's reading too much into it IMO. I've yet to see a single actual commandment that says that "you have to be either a man or a woman."

[King Malachite]

It has been said before that because God made male AND female in His imagine, that means he emcompasses both and I agree.  Now if the Bible said He created male OR female, that would be an entirely different becausee that would imply either or.  However, because God created male AND female then it's only natural to see people who encompasses both characteristics.

As far as sin goes with not living within the role your biological sex, well, you can't find it anywhere in the Bible that specifically condemns it.  If anything, living a lie would be wrong and the Bible says even all liars are condemned already (Revelation 21:. 

My opinion:  I believe that the Bible is true so I also believe Romans 10:13 is true, which says "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."  "Whosoever" sounds like it also includes transgender individuals.

[Nikias]

I guess the point is that it is irronic, in my opinion, that the ones who use this verse to critcise transexuals for being as we are wired to be don't seem to realize that God is the one who did the wiring. Whether we are man, woman or man and woman together (like Androgynes or other in betweeners).

That means, of course, that transexuals were part of the plan all along, I figure because of unique perspective we can offer the world. That thought comforts me.

Sorry if I'm rambling, I'm so tired I'm just glad if I make any sense.


-Nick

[Eva Marie]

My opinion:  I believe that the Bible is true so I also believe Romans 10:13 is true, which says "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."  "Whosoever" sounds like it also includes transgender individuals.

That's my opinion too Malachite. It's hard to argue with that verse. Do this one thing and be saved, just like the thief on the cross did. The verse doesn't have any conditions on it. God made me and knew me before I was formed in the womb and he certainly knows that I am trans; it's not a surprise or a secret to Him. I think He is far more concerned about whether or not I believe and that I'm living according to His will than he is about what's in my pants.

I've seen people tie themselves up in complete, huge knots and have knock down drag out fights over very esoteric points of scripture, when that one verse says it all. Pre-trib, post-trib, losing your salvation, baptism, which church has the "correct" beliefs and doctrine, and so on are some of the things that I have seen people argue and fight about endlessly.

Believe and be saved. It's not that complicated.

[ZoeM]

The fact that intersex conditions (including genetically) exist immediately turns "male and female" from the sum total of all possibilities to an abbreviative description of the majority of cases.

For "We are fearfully and wonderfully made" - if God only made the normal cases, that contradicts the verses that say we are all His children/His creation. It's as simple as that.

This is the single simplest anti-trans argument to refute. Keep the refutation in mind and you should have no trouble with it in conversation.

[MaryXYX]

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
What part of "whosoever" is hard to understand?

My personal experience was that I lost my relationship with God while I was living a lie and recovered it when I came out as my true self.  This is just my own testimony.

[Danielle Emmalee]

My personal experience was that I lost my relationship with God while I was living a lie and recovered it when I came out as my true self.  This is just my own testimony.

Me too.

[King Malachite]

That's my opinion too Malachite. It's hard to argue with that verse. Do this one thing and be saved, just like the thief on the cross did. The verse doesn't have any conditions on it. God made me and knew me before I was formed in the womb and he certainly knows that I am trans; it's not a surprise or a secret to Him. I think He is far more concerned about whether or not I believe and that I'm living according to His will than he is about what's in my pants.

I've seen people tie themselves up in complete, huge knots and have knock down drag out fights over very esoteric points of scripture, when that one verse says it all. Pre-trib, post-trib, losing your salvation, baptism, which church has the "correct" beliefs and doctrine, and so on are some of the things that I have seen people argue and fight about endlessly.

Believe and be saved. It's not that complicated.

I got to admit, I'm one of those people that like to get into those "knock down drag out fights" as I love to defend my beliefs   OSAS Post-tribber here!   But I do agree, believe and be saved!

My personal experience was that I lost my relationship with God while I was living a lie and recovered it when I came out as my true self.  This is just my own testimony.

Same here

[Vicky]

When you are tracing your genalogy, you tend to leave out the folks who were not in the kid producing line if you want to make it simple, and for child producing you do need fertile female (putting the most important first in line) and fertile male, and forget about the infertile relatives.  Some place along the family line though you realize Uncle Goober was the one who started the family fortune and left it to his wacked out nephew who blew it.  It makes a good story, but makes it longer.  Since a good part of the Bible is about "begetting" only the begetting begat get attention.  Thus gay and TG and just did not rate a story.  But there are a few mentioned if they made a "BIG" character look good and more plausible.

I belong to a Christian denomiation that does not take the Bible literally in a whole lot of places. Today's spiritual and non literal view of the Bible is not best served by fourth century world views of then science which was intertwined with religion to make religion look good.  Apply current science to our lives and then look at the Bible, and I for one see a diety I can love and honor much more, because I no longer see a heavenly temper tantrum brewing and making life a static misery.

[izzy]

god allowed imperfections to exist in his universe so it would be perfect in his eyes.

[Michelle-G]

The passage says "male and female" not "male or female".  If the Bible really did condemn ->-bleeped-<- then here is the place where that could happen, IF the word that had been used was "or" instead of "and".  This little word is the difference between the Bible condemning ->-bleeped-<- (which it does not) and affirming ->-bleeped-<-, which the passage actually seems to be doing!

The key word "and" is inclusive and the word "or" is exclusive.  Let's illustrate the and / or concept.  We believe that the Gospel is to be preached to Jews and Gentiles [everyone], but we do not restrict it to Jews or Gentiles [pick one].  And if the Gospel is for everyone then that includes the Samaritans, who were simultaneously Jew and Gentile.  We believe that the Gospel is to be preached to the rich and the poor [everyone], but we do not restrict it to the rich or the poor [pick one].   And if the Gospel is for everyone then that includes the middle class, who are not rich or poor.

When this passage says that "male and female He created them" it states that God, in His wisdom and desire for man to be complete, gave all of humanity the characteristics of both genders but, like the Jew / Gentile and the rich / poor paradigms, neither denies nor requires that anyone could be both or neither.  Had the passage said "male or female [pick one] He created them" then the gender binary would be firmly established and the passage would mean that God created some people male or some people female, and any contrary views or variations would be excluded.

A strict view of the gender binary denies that God's word is written as it is.  Some would argue that the implication here is that of "only" male and female, but a literal translation of Scripture inherently negates such a reliance on implications.  The verse either says what it says or it doesn't, and in this case the passage says "male and female".

[MaryXYX]

I think your logic is a bit stretched Michelle-G, but it makes a good argument.  Unfortunately the argument I have heard from certain church people is:
1. God doesn't make mistakes.
2. Your body is male.
3. Therefore you are male.
4. Anything else you say is a lie.

Any attempt to continue a discussion just leads to "see point 4".

[peky]

where are "you" ? Where is your gender? your sexual orientation ? Where do you 'hear" and "talk" to G-d? Where does your G-d moveS you? Where is your "hart," consciousness, mind?

All between your ears, right?

So, yes, male and female, and in between, G-d made them, that is their brain...our brain

[Michelle-G]

I think your logic is a bit stretched Michelle-G, but it makes a good argument. 

Mary, I sense from your response that you've been unduly influenced by a harsh and divisive traditional church view of gender variance.  That's not a criticism, but it's normal that in any society the prevailing attitude tends to influence, or even infect, public discourse and that this acceptance of orthodoxy by itself makes it harder for anyone to readjust the paradigm.

Unfortunately the argument I have heard from certain church people is:
1. God doesn't make mistakes.
2. Your body is male.
3. Therefore you are male.
4. Anything else you say is a lie.

Any attempt to continue a discussion just leads to "see point 4".

That's exactly what I mean.  Everything you have stated here is the standard response given by religious people (I am avoiding the use of the word "Christian", because wacky doctrines like this are simply not christian).  But none of this is biblical.

This notion that the body determines gender patently denies the nature of the soul, the nature of self identity and the spiritual nature of mankind's existence as distinct and separate from the physical existence (albeit integrated).

In short, the idea that the physical body is the determining factor of gender is antithetical to Christian doctrine.

But that first idea is certainly correct.  God doesn't make mistakes.  I know that because He made me, and I am definitely not a mistake.

[MaryXYX]

God doesn't make mistakes.  I know that because He made me, and I am definitely not a mistake.

Me too!  It took me quite some time to get here with my church background, but that's where I am.
I don't think my former church had encountered the trans* question before me, but they seemed to address it as more or less the same as homosexuality (see Westboro ...)

Note "former church" - the minister of my current church is actively pro-LGBT.  When the URC debated allowing civil partnerships to be conducted in churches she was the first over the parapet - and carried the motion.

[peky]

This notion that the body determines gender patently denies the nature of the soul, the nature of self identity and the spiritual nature of mankind's existence as distinct and separate from the physical existence (albeit integrated).

In short, the idea that the physical body is the determining factor of gender is antithetical to Christian doctrine.

Just out of curiosity what -according to you- is the nature of the soul?

Do you make a difference between spirit and soul?

and if the soul determines the gender that that means your soul has a gender?

[MaryXYX]

Just out of curiosity what -according to you- is the nature of the soul?

Do you make a difference between spirit and soul?

and if the soul determines the gender that that means your soul has a gender?

I spent quite a lot of my life with the Evangelical Christian view of body, soul and spirit.
Body I think we agree on.
Soul - the mind and emotions.
Spirit - the part of God that is within us and responds to God.

If we use this view the body has a sex, the soul has a gender, and the spirit is like God in being masculine and feminine and both and more.
I don't see anything in the Bible to say that the sex of the body and the gender of the soul have to match.

[Michelle-G]

Wow, great questions!  First, I like Mary's answers, and if you do as well then go with those.  But here's the thinking behind my comments -

Just out of curiosity what -according to you- is the nature of the soul?

I use the term "soul" a lot for 2 reasons.  First, I'm taking it back from Jung so we can discuss the trans experience from a holistic and spiritual, rather than clinical, viewpoint.  Jung used the term "psyche" as a clinical term for the soul.  Makes sense, because if you're practicing psychotherapy you really need some diagnostic terms, and the word "soul" is really a religious and philosophical term.

But it's the same thing.  The soul is where our identity lies, and Jung correctly noted that this was the repository of all of those intangible, nonphysical aspects of human existence, such as goals, aspirations and identity.  And since we're talking about identity, then that has to include gender identity.

The other reason I use the word "soul" is because for those of us who have some sort of religious background or who are trying to find our place at God's table in today's intolerant atmosphere that word is a known value.  It has a definition (we've already discussed it here) and it carries weight with Christians, both cisgender and transgender and among both trans-accepting Christians and those who discriminate.

And here's the best part.  Christian ideas of the nature of the soul have the weight of centuries of theological study, and I have yet to find any doctrine regarding the soul that would refute the idea that it contains our identity.  And it is this particular inherently Christian doctrine that is diametrically opposed to the currently fashionable idea that because your body comes into this world in a certain configuration then this automatically dictates your identity.  I have yet to find any scriptural basis for that idea, yet the distinct attributes of the soul as it pertains to identity are all through the Bible.

Do you make a difference between spirit and soul?

The term "spirit" gets a lot of play but the spirit is not the soul.  Example:

1 Thessalonians 5:23 - "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Note the existence of 3 distinct aspects of the person. We are spirit beings (ie: ethereal and able to occupy other realms, which we will do when we depart this earth), we are a soul and we live in the body.

and if the soul determines the gender that that means your soul has a gender?

In a way, yes.  Your soul isn't something you have.  It's what you are, and unlike the body it is eternal.  YOU are your soul.  YOU have a gender.  YOU know all of this because it's imprinted in the form of your identity which resides in your soul.