When I say “apology” it is not saying “I’m sorry.” One of the many skills I don’t have enough of is biblical apologetics, which is Merriam-Webster defines as a ”reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.” So, first let me tell you what this post isn’t. First, it is not an eisegetical argument (adding my or any other viewpoint to biblical text). I have little to no bias on this subject so I will give as fair an argument as I can. I have no ax to grind. Second, this is not an attempt to force Christianity into a transgendered worldview or vice versa. This is a post identifying issues on both sides of the argument, with the hope of providing a greater perspective for those on both sides of the aisle.
First I’ll start with Christian arguments against being transgendered. Don’t get offended by my word choice, because I know you’re thinking, “It’s not like I chose to be transgendered.” That’s the first understanding that needs to happen; Many Christians view it as a choice, and not nature. That’s just the perspective, because “God made Adam and Eve, and there was no crisis of gender.” This is so ingrained in Christian culture that people will make that argument point without even knowing that that is their reason behind it. From there, all arguments stem. Some Christian groups will argue that early Genesis (first book of the Bible talking about the creation of the world and birth of the nation of Israel) talks about God creating separations and boundaries. An example of this would be God created light and dark, land and water, and then man and woman. So they see this as a commandment from God, that those are boundaries that morally should not be crossed. Where this unravels, is in the fact these are statements made in Genesis. I believe that God created the universe and science backs it up with minimal leaps of faith, but from a biblical perspective, these are just points of fact. To make the argument that this means that gender has boundaries is an assumption and untenable.
The next argument is even shakier: “Transgenderism” cause chaos. Seeing a trend yet? To make this into a modus ponens argument:
- To be transgendered is to be at odds with natural law (according to Genesis if you’re closed minded).
- To be at odds with the natural law, means you are directly attacking God himself.
- If you are attacking God by pursuing your way of life, then you are living in intentional sin.
This is the worldview of many Christians. To be fair, their argument only holds weight in so far as God remains silent on the issue. You can’t just come out and say that to a Christian though because they would say that “God created man and woman” is proof positive that God is not silent on the issue. I’ve debated and debated with Christians and non-Christians alike, and you just can’t argue with this kind of stupid. It doesn’t matter how the first line of argument is based on a logical fallacy (argument from silence). What you have to understand that when you are arguing with anyone, you can only convince them if pathos, logos, and ethos are in agreement.
This post will have two parts, this is the end of part one. The basic outline of the Christian view is simple to understand, hard to relate to, and completely untenable. It relies on the silence of God and makes logic jumps that assume that the creation story in Genesis is a commandment. We are all Pharisees at heart. Pharisees were the religious leaders in Jesus’ time, and they took the hundreds of laws in the Old Testament and added even more. We create rules and fold them into our belief box. We can only escape being a Pharisee when we realize what the other side of the argument is, and gain perspective from it.