Dr. Mohler says in the 2/2/17 Briefing that the subject of transgenderism1 is “actually fairly easy to understand.” Is it really as simple as he portrays it? Recently I was reading a popular book (a NY Times best seller), “The Gene: An Intimate History” by Pulitzer Prize-winning author, medical doctor and scientist Siddhartha Mukherjee. There is a section in it on transgenderism which explains why male/female is not even genetically a simple either/or proposition.
It’s true that there is a single gene on the Y chromosome that is a kind of master switch for maleness. But it is at the top of a hierarchy of genes through which it operates. By turning them on or off, it regulates many processes at many times during development and in many parts of the body. There can be failures and variations at different levels of the hierarchy. If that master switch itself is broken (as happens in Swyer syndrome), a person can by genetically XY but anatomically completely female except for her ovaries. She will develop as a normal girl until the age of puberty, but that cannot occur naturally due to her missing ovaries. It is typically only then that she discovers her condition.
Mukherjee suggests that such variations can happen at different levels of the gene hierarchy which control different aspects of development. One effect of such a genetic variation could be that the brain might fail to masculinize and so develop in the way a typical girl’s brain does, even though other parts of the genetic network would be operating normally, producing male anatomy and physiology. This would result in a transgender girl, that is, someone whose mind develops as a girl’s would in a body that is anatomically male. Presumably, girl’s minds are predisposed to see themselves in other girls and women more than they do in males. That is, they identify as girls. Mukherjee doesn’t take it up, but a similar genetic story might account for transgender boys, if some masculinizing influences are turned on at lower levels of the gene hierarchy. (There is some evidence for this.2)
There are many mysteries of development and psychology which are not yet understood. But the point is that, when you take the full range of variation into account, even the biology of sex, let alone the psychology of gender, is not a black-and-white, either/or proposition, where all things male and masculine go on one side, and everything female and feminine on the other.
Dr. Mohler speaks of transgenderism as “a moral fiction”, and appeals to “common moral sense, common biological sense.” But common sense is something you start with – a kind of default assumption – not something you end with, at least not when new information becomes available. If we’re interested in the truth, we take new information into account – we educate our common sense, to be more subtle, more informed of the variety and complexities of the real world. To listen to Dr. Mohler, you might think it is a sin for Christians to learn anything new. Is it?
Morality does come into play here, but only secondarily. First and foremost, this is a question of fact – of what is the nature human genetic, biological and psychological variation. Such facts are either true or false regardless of morality. Then morals come into play when the question is: given the facts, how shall we behave, and what moral judgments should we make?
Just as an example, think of left-handedness/right-handedness. Not that long ago being left-handed was frowned upon, even morally. Lefties were forced to eat and write like righties, because somehow this was considered better. There was a stigma attached to being left-handed and to using the left hand for certain activities. This was considered common sense (by righties). Nowadays we recognize that being left-handed is just a matter of natural variation, and it is better for the left-hander to be allowed to do things in the way most natural to him or her. They will be more successful that way, and happier, because that’s the way they were made.
So the first question is, are some people with male anatomy and chromosomes made in such a way that it is most natural for them to live life as girls and women, and are there some people with female anatomy and chromosomes made in such a way that it is most natural for them to live life as boys and men? By “most natural” I don’t mean to imply a moral judgment. I mean to point to a psychological fact: does it feel right to them? Does it make them happy? Does it come naturally to them? Does it allow them to lead more fulfilling lives? Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that such people exist. Then we come to the moral questions: Should we stigmatize them for behaving in this unusual way? Should we force them into gender roles that they rebel against, which may make them suffer, and in which they may not thrive? Is their rebellion sinful?
Let me suggest that these are serious questions – both of fact and morality – that deserve more consideration than to be answered by an easy appeal to “common sense.” Common sense is for common things, not for rare, unusual circumstances. Rules of thumb are not for hard cases. Hard cases call for hard thinking. Unfortunately, I don’t hear Dr. Mohler summoning anyone to that task.
Dr. Mohler says the question is easy. But this is what’s too easy: dividing all opinions between two different “worldviews”; assuming that because you consider yourself to hold a Christian, biblical worldview, that all your opinions are therefore Christian and biblical; and then calling on your common sense (not scripture) to tell you the will of God. Your common sense might turn out to be just what you were brought up with, which is no guarantee of correctness. (Think back a few centuries.)
Dr. Mohler does call on scripture – often on Genesis. But it behooves us to remember that the Bible’s description of creation is not exhaustive. There are lots of things that are not in it – America, for example; democracy; DNA; sickle cell anemia – and here’s a biggie: the brain! So why not the rare condition of transgender identity? Just because He created us male and female doesn’t mean that your common sense conceptions of male and female are all He had in mind.
But then of course there is Romans 1, in which Paul lumps homosexual behavior in with “every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity,” and conservative Christians like Dr. Mohler lump transgenderism in with homosexuality, even though Paul was upset by “unnatural relations”, while transgender people insist that their trans identities are natural to them, and Dr. Mukherjee gives us a way to understand how that might be true.
I would just remind you that Paul found nothing objectionable about slavery, and was used in the South to justify it biblically. Some have argued that Paul cannot be blamed for his attitude toward slavery since he was simply a product of the time he was writing in. But if you can relativize Paul’s approval of slavery to his historical circumstances, might not his attitude toward non-standard sexual practices also be discounted as an expression of the prejudices of a hellenized Jew and not the opinion of God Himself? Even if you accept Romans as the gospel truth, might it not also be possible to see the moral sense of a different point of view? One which doesn’t accept Paul’s opinion, but does take into account the experiences of contemporary Americans and the complicated picture that today’s science affords?
1. Many in the trans community frown on the word "transgenderism". I'm of a different opinion, as expressed here: www.quora.com/Is-transgenderism-the-correct-word-to-use-in-regards-to-trans-people. Just to be clear, by it I'm referring neutrally to the property of being trans, not to an ideology, and I'm not implying that being transgender is a disease.
2. www.newscientist.com/article/dn14424-transsexuality-gene-makes-women-feel-like-men
It’s true that there is a single gene on the Y chromosome that is a kind of master switch for maleness. But it is at the top of a hierarchy of genes through which it operates. By turning them on or off, it regulates many processes at many times during development and in many parts of the body. There can be failures and variations at different levels of the hierarchy. If that master switch itself is broken (as happens in Swyer syndrome), a person can by genetically XY but anatomically completely female except for her ovaries. She will develop as a normal girl until the age of puberty, but that cannot occur naturally due to her missing ovaries. It is typically only then that she discovers her condition.
Mukherjee suggests that such variations can happen at different levels of the gene hierarchy which control different aspects of development. One effect of such a genetic variation could be that the brain might fail to masculinize and so develop in the way a typical girl’s brain does, even though other parts of the genetic network would be operating normally, producing male anatomy and physiology. This would result in a transgender girl, that is, someone whose mind develops as a girl’s would in a body that is anatomically male. Presumably, girl’s minds are predisposed to see themselves in other girls and women more than they do in males. That is, they identify as girls. Mukherjee doesn’t take it up, but a similar genetic story might account for transgender boys, if some masculinizing influences are turned on at lower levels of the gene hierarchy. (There is some evidence for this.2)
There are many mysteries of development and psychology which are not yet understood. But the point is that, when you take the full range of variation into account, even the biology of sex, let alone the psychology of gender, is not a black-and-white, either/or proposition, where all things male and masculine go on one side, and everything female and feminine on the other.
Dr. Mohler speaks of transgenderism as “a moral fiction”, and appeals to “common moral sense, common biological sense.” But common sense is something you start with – a kind of default assumption – not something you end with, at least not when new information becomes available. If we’re interested in the truth, we take new information into account – we educate our common sense, to be more subtle, more informed of the variety and complexities of the real world. To listen to Dr. Mohler, you might think it is a sin for Christians to learn anything new. Is it?
Morality does come into play here, but only secondarily. First and foremost, this is a question of fact – of what is the nature human genetic, biological and psychological variation. Such facts are either true or false regardless of morality. Then morals come into play when the question is: given the facts, how shall we behave, and what moral judgments should we make?
Just as an example, think of left-handedness/right-handedness. Not that long ago being left-handed was frowned upon, even morally. Lefties were forced to eat and write like righties, because somehow this was considered better. There was a stigma attached to being left-handed and to using the left hand for certain activities. This was considered common sense (by righties). Nowadays we recognize that being left-handed is just a matter of natural variation, and it is better for the left-hander to be allowed to do things in the way most natural to him or her. They will be more successful that way, and happier, because that’s the way they were made.
So the first question is, are some people with male anatomy and chromosomes made in such a way that it is most natural for them to live life as girls and women, and are there some people with female anatomy and chromosomes made in such a way that it is most natural for them to live life as boys and men? By “most natural” I don’t mean to imply a moral judgment. I mean to point to a psychological fact: does it feel right to them? Does it make them happy? Does it come naturally to them? Does it allow them to lead more fulfilling lives? Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that such people exist. Then we come to the moral questions: Should we stigmatize them for behaving in this unusual way? Should we force them into gender roles that they rebel against, which may make them suffer, and in which they may not thrive? Is their rebellion sinful?
Let me suggest that these are serious questions – both of fact and morality – that deserve more consideration than to be answered by an easy appeal to “common sense.” Common sense is for common things, not for rare, unusual circumstances. Rules of thumb are not for hard cases. Hard cases call for hard thinking. Unfortunately, I don’t hear Dr. Mohler summoning anyone to that task.
Dr. Mohler says the question is easy. But this is what’s too easy: dividing all opinions between two different “worldviews”; assuming that because you consider yourself to hold a Christian, biblical worldview, that all your opinions are therefore Christian and biblical; and then calling on your common sense (not scripture) to tell you the will of God. Your common sense might turn out to be just what you were brought up with, which is no guarantee of correctness. (Think back a few centuries.)
Dr. Mohler does call on scripture – often on Genesis. But it behooves us to remember that the Bible’s description of creation is not exhaustive. There are lots of things that are not in it – America, for example; democracy; DNA; sickle cell anemia – and here’s a biggie: the brain! So why not the rare condition of transgender identity? Just because He created us male and female doesn’t mean that your common sense conceptions of male and female are all He had in mind.
But then of course there is Romans 1, in which Paul lumps homosexual behavior in with “every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity,” and conservative Christians like Dr. Mohler lump transgenderism in with homosexuality, even though Paul was upset by “unnatural relations”, while transgender people insist that their trans identities are natural to them, and Dr. Mukherjee gives us a way to understand how that might be true.
I would just remind you that Paul found nothing objectionable about slavery, and was used in the South to justify it biblically. Some have argued that Paul cannot be blamed for his attitude toward slavery since he was simply a product of the time he was writing in. But if you can relativize Paul’s approval of slavery to his historical circumstances, might not his attitude toward non-standard sexual practices also be discounted as an expression of the prejudices of a hellenized Jew and not the opinion of God Himself? Even if you accept Romans as the gospel truth, might it not also be possible to see the moral sense of a different point of view? One which doesn’t accept Paul’s opinion, but does take into account the experiences of contemporary Americans and the complicated picture that today’s science affords?
1. Many in the trans community frown on the word "transgenderism". I'm of a different opinion, as expressed here: www.quora.com/Is-transgenderism-the-correct-word-to-use-in-regards-to-trans-people. Just to be clear, by it I'm referring neutrally to the property of being trans, not to an ideology, and I'm not implying that being transgender is a disease.
2. www.newscientist.com/article/dn14424-transsexuality-gene-makes-women-feel-like-men
No comments:
Post a Comment