Posts Tagged Gender
Redefining Gender In The Modern Age
Posted by yirahyahweh in Uncategorized on January 2, 2015
He felt alone, misunderstood, and rejected by his parents because they would not accept his choice to be a girl. They felt confused, upset, and morally justified in denying his will. He could not see a way out and could not accept their view so he felt a better answer was to not exist. He wrote a note, planned it out, and stepped from this world to the next. Leelah Alcorn was a troubled and confused person whose choices I cannot agree with, but if we are unwilling to look at the problem honestly we are condoning it. I cant do that either. Camps are starting and the internet is full of people’s opinions. They start with or center on a pronoun. Should he have been or be called a she. The specifics and legal ramifications will be debated for a long time to come but the ethical response has no reason to wait.
Is Gender a characteristic that can be defined by human will or is it set in stone? Is it malleable or do we have the right and need to discover it? Science has an answer, conservatives have an answer, liberals have an answer, but are we asking the right questions? Human DNA coding on a base level promotes the pairing of chromosomes that either match in type or do not. If they match in type science determines the person female and if they differ in type it determines male. This seems simple enough as the DNA code writes the person and their growth patterns throughout their life. This however also creates a problem. If the will of the person does not agree with the genetic coding, is the coding wrong?
Gender dysphoria is understood as a person who strongly feels they are not the gender they physically appear to be. The DNA coding somehow misfired and their consciousness went one direction while their body went another. The medical response is to surgically and chemically alter the body to realign these two diverse views or recreate what has been created. God is removed from the picture and man takes over to right the wrong that has been done. Does that just address the symptom though? If the DNA code does not change, is the person truly changing? This may seem like a minor point but I think the entire argument rests on it. If the surgical and medical solution does nothing to change the causal factors of the dilemma, have we truly addressed the problem that the person has or have we merely changed outfits? I am not trying to make light of it, I think this is the core. If we are not able to fix the root issue then are we helping the situation by focusing on the pronoun and attacking those who do not agree?
Richard Dawkins stated that “Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous—indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.” If nature (DNA) is truly purposeless, then it cannot be wrong as wrong would indicate it went against its own or a superior designer’s directive or desire. In other words DNA can’t be wrong, only God can. The very nature of this problem philosophically begs the question, “Can God make a mistake”?
In short, many on both sides of the fence, feel he can and does. I think the challenge is two fold. One, if we claim he made the mistake, we are claiming to have superior knowledge to him and thereby become better than him. If that is the case, why is the world still in trouble? The second part is that our answer doesn’t help the person in trouble. In the case of Leelah Alcorn, we all failed. The church, society, his school, his friends, his loved ones, we failed at helping him address the problem of accepting who he was. That lead him down a path to make a very dark choice. All we are left with is asking how we will help the next person?
The church should be a haven for people like Leelah but in his own words, it was not for him. Maybe that had to do with some misguided and frankly aberrant social science behavioral modification garbage his counselors were using, or maybe it had to do with just not communicating well enough that God loved him for who he was. Either way, we missed our goal of loving the world.
Gender is not truly malleable but a person has the freedom to be who they want to be. His parents felt that he was headed down a wrong path and wanted better for him. Society taught him rebellion against them was fine as long as it lead him to who he wanted to be. That frankly is as irresponsible as the behavioral modification. Like many social issues today, there is a lot of red paint. We will never solve the problems if all we do is blame the person who is covered the most. The issue of gender is symptomatic to the acceptance of who we are. Christianity teaches that who we are is less important than whose we are. Maybe we need to do a better job explaining that before our voice stops being heard completely.
The Feminist Manifesto Without The Agenda
Posted by yirahyahweh in Uncategorized on November 23, 2014
Labels sometimes betray us. They can say more about the labeler than the one being labeled. I grew up in a time when the concept of feminism was a liberal agenda that had more voice than value, or at least that was how the conservative side painted it. That was met equally by the conservative side being labeled by the liberal side as misogynistic and oppressive with more greed than brains. Somehow the true problems being voiced got buried and I fear they have just increased as they have rippled through time.
Webster’s defines Feminism as “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities”. The simplicity of this makes me feel I am missing something. How can anyone not be a feminist? If a person is ever willing to say or think seriously that gender should ever dictate rights, they are simply somewhere between addle minded and deranged. The scariest part about that is historically the church fit somewhere on that scale. This misanthropic myopia linking the church’s theology to the dark ages clearly did more to support the battle of the sexes than it ever did to call armistice and seek a resolution. In fairness to the church, they felt justified because the Apostle Paul mentions roles of women and cultural customs in two of his epistles. Why some more enlightened scholar did not point out that the social roles and customs Paul spoke of directly related to a society that can not even be remotely linked to modern America, I do not know. What I do know is that using the bible to support injustice offends God even more than me.
With the labels firmly in place after decades of battle, will we ever truly get down to the issue that needs to be addressed? What really defines equality of the sexes? Is it pay or status? Is it whether we have the appropriate ratio of male/female politicians and business leaders? Is it gender neutrality in language, or is it securing reproductive autonomy for women and removing the male voice entirely. Whereas these are specific ideals in some feminist groups, I don’t see how these characterize gender equality or how they secure rights and opportunities as the definition states.
Like many problems, the real issue is in the words we use to argue a point. To argue for or against the widening or narrowing of roles for women in society and the church starts with a fallacy. Why are there expected roles placed by either the church or society? By simply agreeing that there are expected roles that should be followed we are advocating that some people were intended to be in those roles. In short, they were made for them. The church has believed God created men for some roles and women for others. Secular society would call it nature or the evolutionary process. The problem is that both groups are saying the rules were not created by them but we need to follow them. That is where the error lies. Roles should not be defined by expected rules and norms. They need to be defined by the people who choose to accept them for themselves. Basically outside of physical limitations, people should not be limited by anything other than their own desire and willingness to achieve. By even addressing the issue, we are in part encouraging it.
Still deeper in the problem is the history itself. As both society and church we have committed heinous and utterly stupid acts in relation to this. We have told women outright even to our own detriment that they were not capable of performing tasks because of their gender. Some of those tasks may even have been done better by women but the social structure of the times not only permitted the prejudice but also fostered it. We own that and we carry it with us. We can not change the history but we can change how it affects the present and future. Frankly, I feel the church should be leading this effort. We are far too reactionary when it comes to social concerns and issues.
The real question however is how to lead? Women who choose to live in the established gender roles have just as much right to do so as those who choose not to. Forcing societal change through regulation or teaching has never been successful and reversing the discriminative practices will not correct the past or benefit the now. The inaction of the church in the past has caused more problems then we care to admit. We are seen as the problem when in reality we should be the solution. God called for us to love all and Christ himself placed women in leadership positions in his own ministry. Why don’t we? Some of the greatest biblical scholars are women. I (or anyone for that matter) would be a fool not to listen to them inside or outside the church. If we are truly thinking that gender is the dominant indicator of worth, we are doomed. Maybe I am being simplistic, but shouldn’t we be interested in whether a person has something of value to offer and not limiting the type of things they offer? I wish I had a way to solve the problem but I am not sure there is a solve as much as a path. We need to as individuals stop discriminating based on gender and be willing to look at our actions openly for motivating factors and change them. If we start the change, maybe it will spread. If we do nothing, we are only supporting the problem and wishing it changes. I for one can not accept that.