Labels and Identities

^{AI Generated picture “Labels” – edited by Peter Johnson}

This month’s blog is a little more challenging, at least to me, because of the many pitfalls. There are a lot of links and although I don’t expect you to read all of them, I’d encourage you to at least scan-read most of them even if you don’t read every word.  Maybe read the whole blog through and then come back and check the links you need.

We have seen a mounting antagonism towards the Trans community within society, both here and in the States.  In the USA we have seen a growing number of bills within state legislatures aimed at restricting the access of trans people to healthcare, education, sport, employment, civil rights and a whole range of other categories.  If you want to see a different source, try Advocate.com who seem to provide a good parallel commentary of the bills being put forward. 

You know how keen I am to verify the information I quote, so, if you want to check the reliability of a given media site visit the Media Bias / Fact Check web site.  In this instance, Advocate.com are described as politically left leaning with a high rating for its reliability for factual reporting, but you can check your own favourite news source from those pages.

Getting back on track, we have seen Donald Trump deliberately spread misinformation about the transgender community in his campaign speeches.  His Tucson speech of the 12th September was fact-checked by Pink News here. Then a couple of days ago, because Kamala Harris is known to be pro-trans, Trumps campaign released a tweet saying “Kamala is for they/them. Pesident Trump is for you“, further stoking the divide.

Meanwhile here in the UK we have been seeing our own anti-trans rhetoric being stirred up a few months ago during the election campaign, by James Cleverly, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Kemi Badenoch, Dominic Raab, Priti Patel and Suella Braverman – in fact most of the Conservative party.  Suella Braverman has perhaps been the most persistently vocal, but Kemi Badenoch  also has a long history of opposition  to LGBTQ+ policies.  Although she attracted a fair bit of press attention, it wasn’t quite to the same level as Ms Braverman in the run-up to the election.  Subsequently Ms Braverman has continued her antagonistic stance in the USA by complaining that “I couldn’t even get the flag of a horrible political campaign I disagreed with taken down from the roof of the government department I was supposed to be in charge of.”  I frequently  find it better for my blood pressure to read summarised reports of what people say, rather than the full transcripts, but if you want to read Ms Braverman in her own words she has posted a Telegraph article that she wrote in March, on her website, which demonstrates just how closed-minded she is.  Warning: the content is hard to read and may raise your pulse.

There is a completely closed mind to any idea that people can quite naturally be born outside of a binary gender, despite science proving that this happens in nature.  By way of science, brain scans of “Transgender individuals (TIs) show brain-structural alterations that differ from their biological sex as well as their perceived gender.”  That link is an academic paper and you won’t want to read much of it unless you are academically minded, but scan read the easy bits to get a sense of direction.  One further academic piece produced by the National Library of Medicine (An official website of the United States government) has the heading “Brain Sex in Transgender Women Is Shifted towards Gender Identity”.  That is NOT saying that trans women’s brains look the same as cisgender females (and trans men’s brains look the same as a cisgender man), but it IS saying that before any treatment, they are closer to their identified gender, rather than their biological gender.  In reading around some of the articles, I came across an article relating to a podcast from four years ago, with more user-friendly language (in places! 😄) though the transcript did use technical jargon – obviously because they are giving names to places I didn’t know existed!

Fortunately, since the election the anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric has become less toxic for the moment, but the underlying hatred in some corners of society remains – especially on the internet, and we need to be willing to challenge the language used, and work towards a more friendly and sympathetic discussion of the issues.

If brain scans of people vary from the cisgender norm – even before any treatment is commenced we are obliged to treat the issue seriously, and if we hold to a Christian faith, even more so because of our call from God to defend the widow, the orphan, the alien (foreigner), and the poor.  God is not limiting our defence to just those groups but all those rejected and downtrodden by our society and governments.  This is why I believe the church should be in the vanguard of standing with all those who are marginalised because of their sexuality and gender.  Instead, it has got bogged down because it thinks the word homosexual in our English language Bibles is an accurate translation of the words arsenokoitai and malakoi when better words would be sex trafficker / sex abuser / sex pervert.  As I’ve repeated many times in various blogs, the vice lists that Paul writes are lists of behaviours people choose to act on or not.  If you are a sex trafficker you can choose to stop at a time of your choice – like now!

Being LGBTQ+ has no aspect of choice and requires Christians to answer the question: Why would God set His face against people who cannot change, however much they want to.   One of the major themes of the Bible is that God will help people change if they want to, especially since the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came to assist us.  Since the Sixties we have seen Christian groups abjectly fail to help change gay men to straight.  (Why didn’t they try so hard with lesbian women?  Oh, that’s right, lesbians aren’t that important and basically get a free pass in the Bible!  Tongue very much in cheek!)  They failed because it doesn’t, and won’t, happen.  God allowed LGBTQ+ people to be born because they offered skills and perspectives that the rest of society didn’t have, in order to improve it.

One of my left-handed friends grew up under a repressive middle eastern regime and was forced to learn to write with his right hand.  He didn’t stop being left-handed, he still has a bias to his left, so when eating, the knife and fork are switched, but he simply writes with his right hand.  Maybe this is true for some of you. (It was also the case here in the UK, that left-handed children were still being forced to write with their right hands in some schools, until the 1970’s.)  People can learn to make limited changes, like writing with a different hand, but that does not change the innate core of their being.

Why make this point?  Many churches still say that LGBTQ+ people should “learn to behave” as if straight, because if it looks like they are straight, that’s okay.  That’s absolute cow-dung!  “The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” Solomon was told: “acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the Lord searches every heart and understands every desire and every thought.”  There are lots of other verses about God seeing into our hearts, but at the dawning of the new Church age in Acts 1, the disciples prayed: “Lord, you know everyone’s heart.”  So, who are we kidding by thinking that if we try to behave as if straight, God doesn’t see us as queer.  I’m afraid that sadly this is deceitful teaching by some churches. 

I’ve been focussing on trans issues, but for the rest of this piece, I wanted to run through some of the names/descriptors that people use about themselves, given that they find that typical names or descriptors, don’t really match how they identify.  You’ll be familiar with some, and less familiar with others.  Even if you don’t understand the label, please respect those who identify with that identity as they’re just trying to understand and make sense of complex ideas and feelings.  I guess it’s a bit like trying on a new coat in a shop and seeing which one facing you in the mirror is most comfortable, and most looks like the real “you” that you want to portray. For those outside the LGBTQ+ community, those who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual will normally identify as the sex they were assigned at birth, but here we are covering many of the other identities.  Several of the following will fall under some aspect of transgenderism.

1. Transgender Man / Transman: A man assigned as female at birth but now identifies and lives as a male.
2. Transgender Woman / Transwoman: A woman assigned as male at birth but now identifies and lives as a female.
3. Non-Binary and Genderqueer: A person who was assigned either male or female at birth but who does not identify strictly as male or female.  This can include a wide range of identities, from a mixture of male or female, an offshoot of one or other or completely outside of either.  There is a helpful/confusing diagram here.
4. Genderfluid: A person whose gender identity may change over time or depending on the situation.  There is a helpful description here on the Harvard Medical School website.
5. Agender / Gender-neutral: Individuals who identify as having no gender or being gender-neutral.  More information here.
6. Bi-gender / Dual-gender: A person who identifies as having two genders, either simultaneously or at different times.  Again, there is a helpful page comparing Bi‑gender with other sexual and gender identities.
7. Two-Spirit: A term used by some Indigenous cultures in North America to describe a person who embodies both masculine and feminine qualities.  I mentioned this identity in my original essay.  (From time to time I revisit it thinking I ought to rewrite it because some of my thinking has been refined a little since I first started writing it in 2016 – but it needs time I don’t have!)  More can be read here on the tribal-institute.org website, and you can also gather additional information doing your own internet searches, as with all the other terms.  The writer Will Roscoe has done a lot of work looking at the histories of Native Americans and pre-colonial Tribal Africans, and his writings are worth exploring.  Wikipedia can be very useful providing you check the information they give.  Finally in this section, there is a helpful historical piece written in 2001 and published in the Portland Mercury.
8. Third Gender: This is a name rarely used in the West, but some cultures recognize a third gender category outside of the male-female binary, such as hijras in South Asia or the fa’afafine or the fa’afatama in Samoa.  You can read a wealth of background at Nonbinary Wiki.
9. Demiboy/Demigirl: Individuals who partially, but not fully, identify as male (demiboy) or female (demigirl) but may not fully identify with either gender.  Again there is a helpful page on Queerty.
10. Transmasculine: A term often used to describe individuals who were assigned female at birth but identify more with masculinity. As I understand it, and I might be wrong, but all Transgender folk are either Transmasculine or Transfeminine but if they proceed to transition to their identified gender, they become transmen or transwomen.  This feels like walking through a minefield, so if you know I am wrong please write to me and explain.  Different articles seem to imply different things: some talk about some transmasculine folk taking hormones and possibly undergoing various surgeries, others seem to imply that dressing in ways that express masculinity, changing their name, pronouns, and legal papers is as far as it needs to go, and still others, less than, or a variety of those.
11. Transfeminine: A term often used to describe individuals who were assigned male at birth but identify more with femininity.  This is the flip side of that previous paragraph.
12. Pangender: A person who identifies with many or all genders.  As with all of the other identities, this identity doesn’t infer who they are attracted to, but purely how they identify themselves.  As a first step to gaining a better understanding, you should read “What Does Pangender Mean? + Other Pangender Information To Help You Be A Better Ally!”
13. Androgynous: Individuals who present a blend of masculine and feminine characteristics in their appearance or identity.  Androgyny used to refer to those we now call intersex – those born with indeterminate genders, but now it can be simply part of a gender identity regardless of biology.  Alternatively, it may be a general appearance, or the styles and dress codes people use.  There is a helpful explanation provided by verywellmind.  As examples, you can look at David Bowie from his album Hunky Dory onwards, Boy George, Annie Lennox, Lady Gaga and Grace Jones.
14. Intersex: Finally, while not a gender identity, intersex refers to individuals born with physical sex characteristics that do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies.  Some intersex individuals may identify as transgender.

I am sure that many people will explore various identities before they settle on something permanently.  There will be other identities I haven’t mentioned.  Some identities can be fluid and personal, and individuals may use different terms to describe their experiences.  It is therefore important to respect each person’s self-identification and the language they choose to use.  I have made the mistake of jumping to conclusions when talking with someone (I was lucky that they were gracious to me.), so if there is the slightest niggle of a doubt, check with the person how they would like you to refer to them.

Do you enjoy stirring the pot a little?  This is where I’m going to play around with a few ideas, to see where they lead.  In a sense, I have been wondering how we got to this point on being obsessed with sexuallity and gender, and whether there was a chance this whole area might have been more relaxed in a different timeline!  That comes from watching too many episodes of Star Trek and Doctor Who!  Sadly, from everything I have read and listened to over the years, I’m going to lay it at the door of the church, universally.  The church has always seen sex as dirty and purely for reproductive purposes.  And in the last 150 years we have been much more focussed on sexuality and gender, whereas prior to that it simply wasn’t important, and no-one wondered about their own, or other peoples, sexuality.  It just wasn’t relevant.  The church authorities were very keen to stop people having sex outside of marriage, and even in marriage it was expected you had sex only to procreate – though we know lot’s of “getting along famously” was happening out of sight – in the main!

People like bandying the word sodomy around; always using it to mean anal sex, however, although that is still one meaning, in medieval and early modern Europe, sodomy was broadly defined and encompassed various acts, including anal intercourse, oral sex or any non-procreative sexual behaviour. Laws were harsh, and punishments could include death.  So if you’ve ever used contraception, you would be guilty of sodomy!

There are records going back thousands of years, recording people of indeterminate gender, and sexuality, as we would regard it, who rose to very high positions.  Later, during the Viking period we saw that Christianity was seen as a political expedient to secure peace and territory, rather than a personal faith.  In the early 1400’s European colonialism started spreading across the world and with it they took a brand of Christianity that once again relied on forced conversion – on pain of death.  With this the church taught that some relationships were wrong in its eyes and killed many who disagreed.

On the other hand, we read about how American, Canadian and Australian First Nation Peoples had lived for probably hundreds, if not thousands of years seemingly enjoying a harmonious cultural existence but not viewing sex in the same way Europeans did.

So how would life look if we had had a similar outlook of accepting multiple genders?  Why do trans people feel the need to change their bodies?  If we had accepted them at the beginning as we have seen happen in other cultures, without even a raised eyebrow, would they feel the need to seek treatment for their bodies?  Society, under the historical guidance and power of the church, requires that you can be only male or female, and today there is a huge pressure to conform, so trans folk are told you can’t be male (or female) because you don’t look like one.  Hence, they are forced to take intrusive treatments to look male or female.  Given where we are, I would always stand with a trans person who wanted to change – indeed I have done and would do so again in the future.  However, is it possible that in the future; after looking into the face of Jesus, could the church change its thinking, and start embracing people regardless of inbuilt stereotypes?  Could we then change the national mindset?  Would we need so many labels?  Would trans people still want to change how they appear?  What do you think?    Let me know of your ideas, because how can a straight guy, even an ally, understand what so many of these people feel deep inside?