Tweet
Just this week, the Australia’s Supreme Court ruled that trans people don’t need surgery for changing identity documents. From the National Center for Transgender Equality’s (NCTE’s) blog Advancing Transgender Equality:
Australia’s highest court ruled today [Thursday, October 6, 2011] that transgender people can legally change their gender without undergoing surgery, at least in some Australian states. The case was brought by two transgender men, both of whom have had undergone hormone therapy and top surgery. Western Australia’s Gender Reassignment Board refused to issue them recognition certificates, which would allow them to obtain new birth certificates and change their gender marker in other government records, because both still had typically female reproductive organs.
Legislation in the state of Western Australia permits legal gender change where, among other requirements, an individual “has adopted the lifestyle and has the gender characteristics of a person of the gender to which the person has been reassigned.” The High Court interpreted “gender characteristics” broadly to include a person’s appearance and behavior. Legal recognition of the gender in which a person lives in society, the Court said, did not require “detailed knowledge of their bodily state,” or that a person take “all possible steps…to become as male or female as possible.” The Court emphasized the purpose of the legislation, which was to “alleviate that suffering and the discrimination which [transgender] persons may face by providing legal recognition of the person’s perception of their gender.” While the state’s law did require some form of transition-related medical treatment, the Court concluded that such treatment did not have to be surgical and could include hormone therapy.
The full text of the Australian court ruling is here.
Just a couple of weeks ago, Australia provided a third option for sex markers on their passports: M, F, and X. From the International Business News, Australia‘s Australia’s Passport Introduces ‘X’ Gender Category:
Australians who are neither male nor female can categorize their gender as “x” in their passports as the government has made the option official in the document.
The new passport feature is for the benefit of people who have trouble when going abroad because their appearance does not match their gender, according to Senator Louise Pratt.
“It’s a really important recognition of people’s human rights that if they choose to have their sex as ‘indeterminate’, they can,” Dailymail.com quoted her as saying.
Pratt, whose partner was born female but now lives as a man, acknowledged that there are people with genetically ambiguous gender but were arbitrarily assigned the “male” or “female” sex at birth…
Focus On The Family, through its political action group CitizenLink, has expressed dislike of the “X” option, as well as trans people in general, in their piece by Jeff Johnston, entitled Sex: M, F, or X? (emphasis added):
…When an infant is born with ambiguous or mixed sexual organs, the condition is commonly known as “intersexuality.” The medical community also calls these rare physiological anomalies “Disorders of Sex Development” or “Congenital Anomalies of the Reproductive Tract.” Not a common medical condition; one doctor estimates that about 56,000 individuals in the US are intersex, about 0.018 percent of the population.
But Transgender activists use the anomalies of intersexual people to further their own agenda. Those with Disorders of Sex Development may display a combination of the two sexes, but they are not a distinct, third sex. They do not demonstrate that there are an infinite number of genders.
Congenital medical conditions are a sad result of The Fall, when sin entered the world. Intersex individuals are deserving of our love, respect and compassion. Typically their parents raise them as male or female, and most intersex individuals remain identified with the sex they were raised.
Transgenderism, or Gender Identity Disorder, on the other hand, is not usually caused by a physical problem, but is a spiritual, psychological and emotional problem…
Well, “one doctor estimates that about 56,000 individuals in the US are intersex,” but the Organisation Internationale des Intersexués (OII) estimates up to 5 % of the population & probably more, depending on the definition. The Intersex Society of North America (ISNA) states “If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births.” I’d trust OII’s or ISNA’s estimates over CitizenLink‘s quoted estimate of “one doctor.”
But, the “one doctor” doesn’t say what Johnston stated the “one doctor” said. The article that Johnston referenced in his CitizenLink piece indicated that “[Dr. Anne] Fausto-Sterling asserts that 1.7% of human births are intersex.” I believe simple math indicates that even that one doctor‘s estimate that 1.7% of the population is intersex would mean that more than “56,000 individuals” of the approximately 330,000,000 people in the United States are intersex. But, math is kinda like science, y’know? And we all know how much those on the religious right like science — and more seriously, their propensity to misstate and/or twist the conclusions of secular scientific studies.
And speaking of science, the Johnston statement of “Congenital medical conditions are a sad result of The Fall” is phrased as a fact statement — it’s not phrased as an opinion statement. What he’s referring to is his belief that the Adam and Eve literally fell into sin upon disobeying God and eating of the fruit of the Tree of Life. Literally.
So how is Jeff Johnston an expert on intersex and trans issues? Well, besides being the Gender Issues Analyst for CitizenLink, he’s apparently an ex-gay. Johnston “served as a director on the boards of Exodus International and PFOX, ministries dedicated to providing resources and support for churches, ministries and men and women who experience same-sex attraction. In addition, Johnston served as executive director of Exodus-member ministries in Baltimore and San Diego, in which he helped men and women overcome same-sex attractions.”
Super. He’s a former homosexual who believes his status as a religious right Christian who had “unwanted same-sex attractions and sexual addiction,” his job title at Focus On The Family’s CitizenLink, and his bachelor degree from San Diego State University make him an expert on trans and intersex issues. Literally.
Well, good on Australia for their recent progress on community issues. We can all thank the gawds that Johnston isn’t the Emperor of Australia and deciding how the government of Australia treats trans and intersex people.
8 Comments
They really do seem to live in a different universe than the rest of us do, don’t they? The Fall? Nice to see that medicine and genetics have progressed in their world since the Dark Ages. Not.
I have heard that argument about the Fall as the cause of Differences in Sexual Development before from fundies, and quite frankly it sends chills down my spine. Instead of seeing the existence of humans who cannot easily be classified as male or female as a sign of the complexity of humanity, the argument seems to be that certain people are simply freaks, and therefore not fully human. Talk about a slippery slope. Doesn’t that mean that other humans who do not fit the standard model – say kids with Down Syndrome – are also products of the Fall and therefore damaged goods?
Let me humbly provide a little “behind the scenes” take on this theology, as one with a long-term past history within evangelical Christianity. As a preface, let me say that as a general rule the common ordinary every day Christian does not think deeply about these teaching or the implications of them, and their everyday conversation is rife with cliches and “truism” that don’t actually line up with the theology of their church. So don’t be surprised if I say something here that the Christian you may have encountered doesn’t even know about, let alone understand.
Further, this should not be taken as an endorsement, in whole or in part, of the theology discussed. Each part is predicated on a preceeding part and if the first premise falls, then the rest has a problem.
Now, within Christian theology the most bedrock principle, transcending all faith traditions, is that Jesus Christ came to redeem the world from sin. this redemption is necessary because all God’s creation was originally made without sin BUT occupied by humans who had the free moral agency to chose whether or not to act in a sinful manner.
Whether or not one takes “Adam and Eve” as a literal story or an allegorical representation of some much more complex process, the theology is that once humans voluntarily chose to act outside God’s will, the whole of creation was, in essence, infected with a degenerative disease known as sin. The idea is not “this man sinned so this bad thing happened to him to punish him for his sin” but rather, because all of creation “fell” into a sinful state, things which were not a part of God’s original created order began to happen.
this is the root theological answer to the dilemma “if God is all powerful, and good, then why do bad things happen?”
Under this rubric, disaster and disease and death – everything thing that seems bad and evil – result from that Fall. and so, likewise, do birth defects or even more mundane things like hard burdensome labor, or the pain of childbirth.
it is of course true that the same Christian who would say that homosexuality or transsexualism is a result of the fall would indeed agree that the autistic or Downs child is also suffering from the Fall, as would be the person who has cancer or who lost their home to a tornado. NOT as a direct one-to-one result of the fall, but as part of living in a GENERALLY fallen world.
They would not say “damaged goods” however.
Within the context of their theology, it is a major step forward to acknowledge that intersex conditions do occur and are not some made up myth of the “gay rights agenda” -it is an opening that ought be skillfully pursued, not mocked.
I gave Johnston an extended reply, yet to be posted, arguing from within the context of his worldview and attempting to point out the logical disconnect between acknowledging that intersex conditions are congenital and denying that transsexual conditions are likewise.
Challenging him on the theological accuracy of “The Fall” is a fool’s errand. A battle that can’t possibly be won, even if you personally recognize it as an entirely nonsensical idea. However, whether it is this writer or his readers or some other person somewhere down the line, making the connection between this acknowledgment – that they don’t have spiritual grounds even within their own faith to condemn the intersex individual – and the obvious logical implications for transsexual individuals CAN and should be done.
We don’t really need to mock someone’s theology to win the day, the battle is whether reasonable people can be challenged to think reasonably (and yes, even religious people can often be very reasonable – they just get a very bad rep from the moronic among them – which can happen to us sometimes too).
“The Fall?”
No one wears a fall anymore.
Original Sin is easily the most absurd and damaging idea ever invented. It’s mind boggling that anyone can believe such nonsense
You’re telling us that the only legitimate way to argue with people who promote toxic, brutal, anti-ethical theology is to accept that theology and then argue that our moral claims fit that theology.
No. Just, no. If these people won’t be moved by appeals to reality, why should they be moved by arguments which hinge on the ex post facto justifications they cook up for their bigotries? Why are they more likely to change their positions than just move the goalposts (again) and alter their claimed theology to eliminate the challenge to their bigotry? And in the meantime, we would have accepted and promoted their toxic, brutal, anti-ethical theology.
@M
While I’m an Atheist, I’m more than happy to let people such as Tammy attempt to reduce hatred within a religion using theological arguments. I wish them well in their attempt, knowing that if they get one less person attacked for who they are, their attempt will have been worth it.
That said, I’m an Atheist; even though as a former minister, I understand Christian theology pretty well, I simply can’t make those arguments. Any attempt on my part would quickly devolve into a much larger attack on their theology.
“You’re telling us that the only legitimate way to argue with people who promote toxic, brutal, anti-ethical theology is to accept that theology and then argue that our moral claims fit that theology.”
Not at all. just pointing out that talking him out of his theology won’t work. it might give you great satisfaction to tell him off, but it won’t change his mind.
The thing is – and again I’m not telling you to do it or not – one of the best ways to undermine the theology is to do so from the inside. To illustrate the logical fallacies and contradictions of the things they have been taught to believe. I’m pretty good at this because I’ve been there. You ask why they would not just “move the goalposts” – the only answer for that I can offer is to point to those who HAVE changed their minds.
One of the best sites on the net, IMO, is one called canyonwalkerconnections.com – hosted by a committed Christian woman who a decade ago was completely on the wrong side until she met and got to know a lesbian woman on a hiking trail. I myself know plenty of good old fashion southern conservative Christians who have opened their mind to accepting me because they know me, and they know I’m not attacking their faith.
You are not under any obligation to do anything and if you want to go toe-to-toe and fight about it, go right ahead. I prefer to distinguish between the malicious, “toxic” (to use your word), deliberately hateful people who have the microphone and the run-of-the-mill christian who doesn’t know better because they’ve never been shown a reasonable argument for the other side that doesn’t begin with “listen you ignorant knuckle-dragging backwards hateful hillbilly…”
You’d be surprised how many of them can be moved in our direction when a little mutual respect is shown.
One thing I do know – if you go with the “you hillbilly” tactic, the most you can do is pick up sides and hope you have more on your team than they do on yours – you won’t change any minds. if you grant people the liberty to make up their own mind and not deride or mock or berate them, who sometimes win the opportunity to make your case and occasionally, you’ll convince someone.
I’m not a big fan of “us and them” if there’s any alternative.