In recent weeks Bruce Jenner, an Olympian, has featured on
the cover of Vanity Fair as one Caitlyn Jenner. He’s become the most
high-profile example of what people are calling a “trans-woman.” That’s someone
who was “assigned male at birth” but whose gender identity is said to be “that
of a woman.” But gender confusion doesn’t stop there. Facebook now lists 51
genders its users can choose from.
One explanatory article is helpful in understanding the
thinking behind what’s going on. It distinguishes “sex” as a matter of biology,
from “gender” which it says is “your personal sense of who you are.” It
continues: “Most of us never question or think much about our gender, but
it’s an essential part of our identity. And given the endlessly diverse ways
people experience their gender, their bodies, and their masculinity or
femininity, it’s a wonder there are so few words to describe it. Except there
are actually (at least) dozens of gender terms, and Facebook is now offering
its users numerous options to present their gender identity to their Facebook
friends in the same way they do in the real world (or a different way –
because, hey, it’s your gender identity and you can do what you want).”[1]
Some reasons for gender
confusion
It’s a telling quote in all sorts of ways. And it highlights
at least four reasons why gender is so confused in our day:
1) Our rebellion. Difficult as it might sound in our day even to Christians, you cannot just “do
what you want” with your gender. It is given us by God. To think we can displays
our sinful desire to be God, and so determine who we really are (Gen 3v5-6).
2) Our confusion. The Bible tells us this
rebellion leads to us being foolish in our thinking and subject to all sorts of
wrong feelings (Rom 1v21-27, Eph 5v17-29). So we find ourselves unable to
understand who we are properly. Rather than assess the stereotypes of
masculinity and femininity by scripture, people feel if they don’t fit that
they belong to a different gender and may then seek biological change.
3) Our naivety. Not acknowledging how sin has
led to a confusion of our thinking and feeling, it is assumed that if we think
or feel we are a different gender then that is trustworthy, and that is who we
really are. More than that, sin has fractured the natural order, including our
bodies. So people termed “intersexual” are actually born without clear
biological gender (Rom 8v20). Biblically that should be seen as a deformity.
But our culture has no recognition that we and our world are broken, and so
what seems natural or right is assumed to be so.
4) Our dualism. Rather ironically in a culture
that is so concerned with the physical environment, people see their humanity
as divided. The physical body is just a shell, whereas the inner person, or
soul, is the trustworthy bit that defines who we are. If we feel we are
something other than our biological gender, this is therefore assumed to be the
real us, and our body something we can just change to fit. This view may stem
from the influence of eastern religion. But contrasting it, the Bible presents
us as a unified embodied-soul. Who we are is defined both by the physical body
God has given us as well as our inner self. This is seen most clearly in the
fact that our final state isn’t to be a disembodied spirit, but to be
resurrected in a new body.
Gaining gender clarity
In the light of all this, it is critical that we understand
what it is to be male and female. And there are two essential truths that are
paramount.
1) Gender is not defined by character or personality.
I can see nowhere that the Bible defines masculinity as
being particularly sporty or brave or direct or rational or liking the colour
blue; nor women as particularly sensitive or nurturing or emotional or creative
or with a preference for pink.
Of course we don’t know how sporty Jesus was, nor what
colours he favoured. But he was certainly all these other things! Our identity
as men and women is as sons and daughters of God who were all made to image him
and be restored into that image. So true masculinity is to be biological male
and like Christ, and true femininity, to be biologically female and like
Christ.
That’s not to deny there are attributes that are more
dominant in particular genders. Our biology, the impact of sin, and the
presuppositions of our culture may lean us towards certain traits. But despite
that, what the Bible does teach is that if you are a sensitive man or a more
direct woman, you are no less male or female. In fact, if you are an
insensitive man, you are lacking in your maleness because that is an aspect of
God’s image you lack. And if you lack directness as a woman, you are lacking in
your femaleness as that is an aspect of God’s image you lack too.
Having said all this, although the Bible rejects cultural
stereotypes regarding character and personality as defining one’s gender, it is
quite clear that distinction between the genders should be upheld according to
cultural norms with regard to appearance. So it forbids cross-dressing and
commends arranging one’s appearance in a way that is common to one’s gender
(Deut 22v5, 1 Cor 11v2-16). The reason for this is the importance of affirming
the difference between the genders for the sake of clarity with respect to
their different roles within marriage (1 Cor 11v7-12). This leads to our next
point.
2) Gender is defined by role and biology.
This is the key. In making humanity in his image, why did
God create woman as a distinct gender? Because Adam didn’t have a helper
suitable for helping in him in his task (Gen 2v18-25). So the differences in
the genders flows directly from the different roles God intended for them in
creation. And so men and women are created different for the sake of (1) the
particular task of filling and subduing the earth (Gen 1v28), and (2) the further
task of imaging God in how they do this – most especially by picturing his
relationship with his people (Gen 1v27, Eph 5v22-33).
About women
In terms of “filling the earth,” women are therefore
biologically created for bearing children, making nurturing of younger
children their primary role (Gen 3v16, 1 Tim 2v15). And we should note that throughout
most of history, the vast majority would have been married and this would have
dominated their lives. They would have breastfed their children until 2-3 years
old, by which time another child might have been born. It is for this practical
reason that women’s sphere is portrayed as predominantly that of the home.
Nevertheless, we should note men are also expected to raise their children (Eph
6v4) and engage in domestic life (Gen 18v3-8).
About men
In a general sense men were
biologically created stronger so that they could engage in manual labour in
order to provide for their wife and children and so enable women to fulfil their
particular role. Providing for his family is therefore man’s primary
role in scripture (Gen 3v17-19, 1 Tim 5v8). In this the husband is to picture
how God in Christ gives himself up for the good of his people (Eph 5v28-29). If
there is an option, the husband should therefore remain the primary provider,
not only freeing his wife to use her time for the children and so organising
things at home, but for other service in the church and community she might
choose to engage in as well (1 Tim 5v9-14). This is why, in “subduing the
earth,” men have historically dominated outside the home. But, again, this has
not been to the exclusion of women. Eve was to help Adam in caring for the
garden and so to some degree "enter the workplace" to provide for
their children too (Gen 2v15-24, also Prov 31v13-18, 24).
About roles
For the sake of orderly marriages
then, God has ascribed the role of primary provider and head of the family to
husbands. This is so that they can take responsibility for the ultimate
oversight and care of the family, leaving their wives free to focus on their
particular role of childrearing. For this reason, the role of wives is that of
primary nurturer and helper. However, these roles are not absolute. Women are
commended for working to provide for their families and managing their households
under their husband’s oversight (Prov 31v10-31), whilst husbands are called to
raise their children in the faith and serve their wives (Eph 5v25-6v4). The
picture is of a wonderfully harmonious team in which the genders compliment
rather than compete with one-another, agreeing how to best use their time and
gifts to contribute to society and raise godly children, whilst having
particular roles assigned so that wives are properly cared for and children
flourish.
Gender cannot be divorced from an understanding of these
roles. Rather it is defined by them. In short, there are only two genders –
male and female, which are evident in the biological differences necessary for humanity’s
great tasks of filling and subduing the world and picturing God’s relationship
with his people. Certainly, not all men or women will marry and so engage in
these roles. And outside the family of the home and of the church all are free
to follow any vocation that is not sinful. Nevertheless, because these tasks
are the reason for humanity being created in two genders, the limit to two
genders remains for all.
The cultural challenge
today
At their most basic, these differences were pretty
self-evident until the industrial revolution. What has changed since then is
that technology has given men greater choice over their vocation. This has made
work for many more a joy than burden, which understandably exacerbates any
sense of drudgery their wives might feel in their particular role. At the same
time birth-control has meant that women have not been so bound to
child-bearing, whilst the diversification of labour has increased the amount of
jobs women might engage in too. Moreover, in making people more self-sufficient
we have become more individualistic. And this individualism lays great stress on
being, doing and achieving whatever one wants in life, often irrespective of
others or the wider community.
It is no great surprise that feminism appeared in this
environment. It sought to free women from what was sometimes little more than domestic
slavery, which women could not previously escape because of their dependence on
the provision of men. Feminists recognized this could entail a sort of
prostitution, where a woman has little choice but to be married off to a man
who would pay her with his provision whilst requiring her sexual services and the
raising of his children in return. Feminists wanted women to have equal
opportunity to find their own path in life, without requiring them to marry and
have children, and without limiting them in the job they might have. The
advances of the modern era made all this possible.
It would be wrong to criticise feminism in its entirety, and
certainly to criticise all with feminist sympathies. Indeed, where Christians
failed to confront the oppression of women from the scriptures, we could
perhaps say that God providentially used feminism to give them a much needed
voice. Nevertheless, unless checked by scripture, you can immediately see the
damage feminist assumptions can do. First, they can lead to a resenting of the
God-given role of childrearing and of unborn children themselves. Pregnancy is
seen as a way women can become enslaved to men or to domesticity. And so some feminists
have strongly argued for a woman’s right to abort her children and leave her
newborn children with others so that she can enter paid work as soon as she can.
Second, feminist assumptions can lead to the undermining of marriage too. We’ve
seen that marriage is intended to operate as a team of two where the wife does depend
on her husband to provide so that she can devote herself to her responsibility
in childrearing. Outraged at how this has been abused, some radical feminists
have challenged the differences between men and women that are reflected in
these roles, declared that marriage and the family should be eradicated, and commended
same-sex relationships to avoid any sense of dependence between the sexes. (This
is important background to the gay rights movement and its own attack on the
traditional family.) Third, although there will be other causes, it is not hard
to see how the assumptions of feminism can therefore lead to just the confusion
over gender that we see today. With fewer people marrying or having children, more
opting for careers rather than the roles inherent with marriage, and a general
undermining of the biological difference between genders, people are more
likely to consider that biological difference as malleable. Moreover, societal
views of masculinity and femininity are then likely to be exaggerated as men
and women look for other ways to mark their difference. And this may well lead
those who do not fit these societal norms to question their gender.
Furthermore, the breakdown of marriage, the lack of role models due to parental
absence, and the confused portrayal of gender in society, must only confuse
things further.
Of course, the abuse that feminism reacted to is a far cry
from the biblical ideal, when rightly understood. In scripture women are
commended for business, industry, and leadership in society (Prov 31v10-31,
Acts 16v14, Jud 4v4), and to be loved and cherished by their husbands (Eph
5v22-32). Indeed, the many stipulations for fathers regarding their daughters
and husbands with their wives were intended to protect women against being
used, abused and discarded in the very ways that many women suffer today,
having been told it is liberating to enter relationships with men without the
protection of marriage commitments, societal pressure to keep them, or the
oversight of parents.
Lessons for gender
confusion
1)
We can see then that what people
have started terming “gender” (“your personal sense of who you are”) cannot be
divorced from “sex” (your “biology”). The two are actually one and the same.
And there are and can only be two true genders.
2)
We must accept, however, that because
of sin everyone is to some degree broken, confused and lacking in terms of
gender as in all other areas. It should therefore be no surprise, if we
experience feelings of confusion or alienation in this area, especially as we
grow up in a particularly broken and confused society.
3)
We must feel great pity for the
very few who due to the fractured nature of the created order are born
“intersex” – ie. without a clear biological gender. They are perhaps like those
Jesus taught were born as eunuchs and so unable to marry (Matt 19v12). They are
likely to be deeply confused about their gender, and will need much support as
they hopefully wait in Christ for resurrection in a perfected body. However, my
understanding is that many if not all such people may have a clear chromosomal
gender, with their bodily uncertainty down to hormonal issues. If so, an
operation at a suitable point might be appropriate to bring the body inline
with their innate gender.
4)
Those who identify with a different
gender to their biological sex must be viewed differently. We must certainly
feel great compassion for all who struggle with respect to their gender. But the
fact that the bodies of these people do not display any problems with regard to
determining gender means that their problem must lie within. And gender
identity is formed in all sorts of complex ways as one grows up and is
influenced by one’s family, society etc. But changing the gender of the body is
therefore likely to make the struggle worse rather than better. Instead, what
such people need is help in not basing their gender identity on past
experiences or societal stereotypes, but on accepting their biological gender
and seeking to become like Christ with the whole range of human characteristics.
In this, they should also be discouraged from aligning themselves with the
opposite sex in clothing and appearance.
[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/15/the-complete-glossary-of-facebook-s-51-gender-options.html
