Should Christian Homes, Schools, and Churches Have a Gender Curriculum?

Dan, all of the “Me” portions here are my view as well. None of the “Aaron” portions are.

That's great. I am not trying to be obtuse, though. I said, "Aaron - the fact that the Scripture says she chooses masculine dress means that the Scripture considers her gender (according to modern usage) to be male." I said that because you said that while someone is biologically male, gender is "not the same thing." I do not understand what you could be saying. Are you saying that someone can have a male sex and "not the same" gender?

Aaron Blumer wrote:

“Gender” is what we do, and it’s expressed in a cultural way. “Sex” is what we are.

I anticipate an objection that “this is not what gender is.” If it’s not, what is the word for “the things we do to express our sexual identity in our culture”? We need a word for that. I’m pretty sure it already exists and is the word “gender.”

After thinking about this a bit, I think you are wrong to make this distinction. Gender is so close to sex as to be hardly distinguishable. There might be a slight shade of difference, but it sounds like nonsense to separate the two terms in this way.

When I act in our cultural I act in a masculine way. My wife acts in a feminine way. We probably all know people who are male and act feminine (maybe not in all ways, but some) and vice versa.

I just don't see how you can make gender mean anything all that different from sex except in a postmodern power struggle attempting to control the narrative and put down people who promote God's good order.

Let me try another angle on it.

Don Johnson wrote: When I act in our cultural I act in a masculine way. My wife acts in a feminine way. We probably all know people who are male and act feminine (maybe not in all ways, but some) and vice versa.

Two questions:

1. What is the word for “When I act cultural… act in a masculine way”? (What is this act called?)
2. What happens if you don’t act in a culturally masculine way? (What would that be called?)

Edit: I want to add a third one to, potentially, save some time.

3. What is your definition of biological sex?

On #1, it would be manly or masculine. On #2, it would be feminine.

#3 would depend on the chromosomes

Aaron, I am a biological male. I grew up playing with dolls with my sister and I enjoyed it. My wife and I are expecting our first daughter soon and I plan to play with dolls again. Further I have some pink shirts that I enjoy wearing. I think they look nice. I also like to cook. I have food cooking in the kitchen right now. One of my favorite TV shows is "When Calls the Heart" and my wife is not surprised when she looks over and sees me crying at a sad scene in a movie. Does this mean that my sex is male but my gender is female?

Further my wife does not like "When Calls the Heart" but loves the Marvel movies. I am not that big of a fan of the super hero stuff. Does that mean she has male gender?

To further complicate things, I drive a 4x4 3/4 ton pickup truck and recently replaced the brake pads, calipers, and hoses on it myself. I run heavy machinery as part of my bi-vocational career using a large excavator and skid steer. I wear cowboy boots and a John Deere hat. I can and have hunted, killed, gutted and butchered my own food. My wife can do that too. She has even run a payloader on the job site. So is that gender?

Don Johnson wrote:

On #1, it would be manly or masculine. On #2, it would be feminine.

#3 would depend on the chromosomes

Let’s work with #3 then.

If biological sex is defined by chromosomes, then we have two distinct things in your sentences below.

Don Johnson wrote: We probably all know people who are male and act feminine (maybe not in all ways, but some) and vice versa.

• “people who are male” = chromosomes
• “and act feminine” = not chromosomes

Since you can’t put on chromosomes, can’t button or zip them or take them off, clothing is not biological sex. So masculine and feminine clothing are not chromosomes and therefore not biological sex.

Since a way of moving or acting is not chromosomes, that’s also not biological sex.

Since belief about oneself is not chromosomes, that is also not biological sex.

Here’s the larger principle: For two things to be properly or improperly related, they must first be two things. A thing cannot be “related” to itself, whether properly or improperly.

Because of that the following is nonsense:

• B should be properly related to A
• B is A

And so is this…

• Things we believe and do that have sexual meaning should be properly related to our biological sex.
• Things we believe and do that have sexual meaning are our biological sex.

To be related properly, they must be distinct. If we deny the distinction, we turn our moral argument about proper relation into self contradiction.

Analogies

Sometimes analogies help… though often not. Analogous things/situations always differ in ways not relevant to the argument. But if they’re well chosen, they’re similar in ways that are relevant to the argument.

Dress…

Ralph is a police officer. He is issued a police uniform and is instructed to wear it to work. He shows up at work wearing a fireman’s uniform.

Chief: “Ralph, why are you wearing a fireman’s uniform? You’re a cop!” “Also your job and your uniform are actually the same thing, so never mind.”

Behavior…

Joe is a wide receiver on pro football team. He catches a pass and immediately punts it. Coach: “Joe, have you lost your mind?! You’re not a kicker. You’re a receiver. … but then, what you do is the same thing as what you are, so, never mind.”

Belief…

Pierre sits down for breakfast one morning with his wife. Pierre: “It’s a fine day to be a citizen of South Korea. I’m so glad I’m a Korean.” Wife: “Pierre, do you have a fever? You’re a hodgepodge of European nationalities and a fifth generation American…. but what you believe is the same thing as what you are, so never mind.”

In all three of these, behavior (dress, and belief are also behavior) can’t be improperly related to something unless they’re distinct from it. There can be no relationship between two things unless they are two things. There can be no “ought” to the relationship unless there is a relationship.

So back to where I started with all this.

A curriculum aimed at teaching younger generations traditional views on gender would have to be clear that the whole curriculum is about two things being properly related to each other and that these two things are, in fact, two things. We’ll be incoherent if we insist that the two be properly related then also insist that the two are in fact the same thing.

If we don’t want to be really confusing to a growing segment of the English speaking population (nearing 100% in future generations), we’ll should probably call one of them sex and the other gender. But regardless of what we call them they are two distinct things.

If the two are the same thing, we really have nothing to say. There is no relationship between the two to get right, because there is no relationship at all, because they’re one thing.

JD Miller wrote:

Further my wife does not like “When Calls the Heart” but loves the Marvel movies. I am not that big of a fan of the super hero stuff. Does that mean she has male gender?

To further complicate things, I drive a 4x4 3/4 ton pickup truck and recently replaced the brake pads, calipers, and hoses on it myself. I run heavy machinery as part of my bi-vocational career using a large excavator an

These are great examples of why distinguishing between sex and gender are foundational to teaching on the topic: there are all sorts of things that individuals and societies associate with a person’s sex that don’t necessarily really have any association. How can you evaluate their relationship unless you first recognize them to be distinct from one another?

But to answer your question, to be gender it has to have at least some sexual meaning. I used the word “associated with” in reference to your examples above. In a culture, behaviors clearly gain and lose sexual meaning over time.

Most of us no longer think that being female means it’s proper for you to do dishes but not proper for you to fix cars. Most of us don’t think that being male means is proper for you to like hunting and improper for you to like playing a musical instrument. Try fitting that into a Jane Austen novel!

What we know from Scripture is that male and female are not an accident of evolution, but a difference designed by God for His glory and our thriving. We also know from Scripture that dress and behavior are supposed to respect and value the difference. What we’re not told is what form that should take or how many behaviors should be associated with our sex.

In the examples above, what’s happened is that behaviors that used to be associated with male or female lost their association with either one. In this case, they weren’t reversed, they just became, mostly, not sex meaningful.

When they’re no longer sex meaningful, they’re no longer gender.

(That’s partly social/cultural and partly individual, though. Socially, these don’t have much gender left to them. Individually, somebody might see their love for sewing as very sex meaningful, even if they’re in a context where nobody else does.)

Two questions:

1. What is the word for “When I act cultural… act in a masculine way”? (What is this act called?)

manish

2. What happens if you don’t act in a culturally masculine way? (What would that be called?)

effeminate

3. What is your definition of biological sex?

Don, while chromosomes is correct, no one in Moses’s day knew about them. Yet they still could understand what male and female were.

The definition should include the ability to serve in one of two different roles in reproduction: (conceiving, carrying, and birthing a baby) or (giving semen).

It should allow for anticipation and retrospection (a 4 year old cannot yet reproduce, but she is of the kind who can anticipate later doing so) and (a 60 year old is a person who once could have reproduced).

It should allow for disease and singleness (if a woman is infertile she is no less female because illness or not having a partner kept her from bearing).

Dan Miller wrote:

Don, while chromosomes is correct, no one in Moses’s day knew about them. Yet they still could understand what male and female were.

This is a good point and helps with a question someone raised earlier about why there isn’t an explicit, direct concept of gender in the Bible. Most of the time, I doubt anyone gave any thought what male and female are biologically. It was just there.

And for the most part, the culture wasn’t giving any thought to how biological male and female should relate to dress, and roles, and other behaviors—because it was just there and obvious and few were questioning these things.

Well, relatively few.

The fact that Deut 22.5 exists, shows that even back then it was a big enough problem that the Mosaic Covenant needed to include at least one rule (off hand, no others quite like it are coming to mind) about it. So they needed a rule to say their clothing should signal their biology, and their role in the community—or least not signal the opposite of their biology.

Dan Miller wrote:

Two questions:

1. What is the word for “When I act cultural… act in a masculine way”? (What is this act called?)

manish

2. What happens if you don’t act in a culturally masculine way? (What would that be called?)

effeminate

I was looking for categories there. What do we call the category that consists of “ways we behave that are understood as masculine or feminine.”

As JD and others have shown, these are seldom objective and unchanging things. I think in more than one civilization at some point in its history, its most fearsome warriors went into battle in what we would call skirts.

So, a good curriculum on gender would need to delve into how we evaluate this kind of cultural messaging in a Christian way. We don’t have a flawless record when it comes to distinguishing between what’s merely traditional and what’s biblically demanded. That’s always going to be messy, but we could do a better job of teaching Christians of all ages ways to work through good questions… understanding that we’re always going to differ on some (probably many) of the answers.

Edit to add…

Today vs Moses’ day

Didn’t quite tie this bit back in: They didn’t need an exclusive name for “the things we think and do that relate to our biological sex” in Moses’ day (or Paul’s apparently) because there was no social movement to decouple those things from biological sex. There is today, so thinking it through with precision creates a need for some precise terms. The terms invented or coopted by those who are driving the “movement to decouple…” are inherently unappealing to some. I understand that. If we’re going to have a robust theology on it, though, some newish language (or newish uses of old language) is unavoidable.

Aaron, I missed the replies because I was away a bit and most people were writing on the other threads, bumping this one off the front page of the forum (so I'm still grousing about the new look on the forum. i'll click "notify me" to stay in the loop, though.)

Your responses seem incomprehensible to me.

The problem, I think, is that the idea of gender being radically different from sex is a meaning forced on the term. It doesn't really communicate that, no matter how hard the attempt is made to make it something different.

Don Johnson wrote:

Your responses seem incomprehensible to me.

The problem, I think, is that the idea of gender being radically different from sex is a meaning forced on the term. It doesn’t really communicate that, no matter how hard the attempt is made to make it something different.

Maybe it would help if I laid it out systematically in article. I’m finding it really hard to understand why any of this is difficult, so… do you have specific questions?

that the idea of gender being radically different from sex

This I have not said. What I have said is that the two are distinct. Distinct does not mean unrelated. The two are very much related. The whole debate (the real one) is about how to relate them properly.

On an airplane you have a cockpit and a pair of wings. They are distinct but are supposed to always go together. “Supposed to” is important here, though. You can separate the cockpit from the wings in various ways (a well placed bomb for example). But the results are disastrous.

Biological sex and “the things believe and do that are associated with biological sex” are distinct but are supposed to go together. The whole beef biblical Christianity has with transgenderism is predicated on that because our central thesis is that the wings and the cockpit are not supposed to be decoupled, but they are being decoupled, with harms to individuals and society.

But we have other challenges like how to evaluate changes in what is considered appropriate for one sex vs. the other (e.g., household duties, colors, hobbies, careers, family roles, and more). In that area of study, the distinction between biological sex and “the things believe and do that are associated with biological sex” is also vitally important.

I get that some do not want to call “the things believe and do that are associated with biological sex” gender. Fair enough. I have yet to hear what a better term would be.

Aaron, your position is unclear to me, as I showed with my faulty (Me...Aaron statements). It's also demonstrated by our common use of Deut22:5.

Labelling? Old riddle (Lincoln used it, but it's older than him): If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does the dog have?

Regarding Deut22:5, when the man wears women's clothes...

- The Text still calls him a man. I think Aaron and I both see: He IS a man.

- The Text seems to acknowledge that some men want to dress like a woman.

Aaron, I think we diverge in how we should view this guy with the perspective of gender. I think you are saying that this desire to cross-dress evidences a feminine-ish state of his gender. (I'm trying not to comment on it, but to see your view. Maybe I should have simply asked you what you see it evidencing.)

Aaron Blumer wrote: Maybe it would help if I laid it out systematically in article. I’m finding it really hard to understand why any of this is difficult, so… do you have specific questions?

As per an earlier post, I quoted from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. From that definition, gender and biological sex are overlapping terms (at least). It is hard to tell if one is a subset of the other or if they overlap.

A more contemporary definition at Dictionary.com:

1. either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior:the feminine gender.Compare sex¹ (def. 1).
2. a similar category of human beings that is outside the male/female binary classification.See also third gender (def. 1), genderqueer (def. 3), nonbinary (def. 3).
3. the concept or system of categories such as male and female:Gender is a factor in pay rates across industries.More and more people have a nonbinary understanding of gender.

Grammar.

1. (in many languages) a set of classes that together include all nouns, membership in a particular class being shown by the form of the noun itself or by the form or choice of words that modify, replace, or otherwise refer to the noun, as, in English, the choice ofhe to replace the man, of she to replace the woman, of it to replace the table, of it or she to replace the ship. The number of genders in different languages varies from 2 to more than 20; often the classification correlates in part with sex or animateness. The most familiar sets of genders are of three classes (as masculine, feminine, and neuter in Latin and German) or of two (as common and neuter in Dutch, or masculine and feminine in French and Spanish).
2. one class of such a set.
3. such classes or sets collectively or in general.
4. membership of a word or grammatical form, or an inflectional form showing membership, in such a class.

Archaic. kind, sort, or class.

Here is the dictionary def of sex (linked above) at Dictionary.com

noun

1. the male, female, or sometimes intersex division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions or physical characteristics such as genitals, XX and XY chromosomes, etc.
2. a label assigned to a person at birth, usually male or female and sometimes intersex, and typically based on genital configuration.See Usage note at the current entry.
3. the sum of the structural and functional differences by which male, female, and sometimes intersex organisms are distinguished, or the phenomena or behavior dependent on these differences:These plants change sex depending on how much light they receive.
4. the sexual instinct or attraction drawing one organism toward another, or its manifestation in life and conduct:choosing a life partner based on sex.

The second definitions in each are the result of the current controversies. Definition one in both are overlapping, though as you note gender is more oriented towards behaviour, sex more oriented to characteristics. Yet they overlap. It seems you are making them distinct. At least that is how I am reading what you are saying.

Dan Miller wrote: Aaron, I think we diverge in how we should view this guy with the perspective of gender. I think you are saying that this desire to cross-dress evidences a feminine-ish state of his gender. (I’m trying not to comment on it, but to see your view. Maybe I should have simply asked you what you see it evidencing.)

Getting closer. I wouldn’t word it as “feminine-ish state of…” I would just say he is demonstrating gender in a way that doesn’t match his biological sex. We don’t have enough detail to say he’s “identifying,” etc.

Some commentators think the passage is not about transvestism (e.g., EBC, 1992), but has to do with “the adoption of proscribed religious practices.” But it’s clear enough that whatever forbidden religious practices were involved, there’s still, at ground level, a discontinuity between what’s being communicated (gender) and what’s true (biological sex).

This sentence from ERLC in the news uses “gender” in a similar way…

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) submitted public comments Monday (May 15) objecting to a Department of Education proposed rule regarding students who identify as a gender other than the biological sex of their birth. (BPNews)

In this case, they’re also using the term “identify.” Though that’s a freighted term these days, we still understand what is meant. It acknowledges that in society we do things to communicate sex-related information to other people, and that information includes beliefs about ourselves. Per ERLC, these beliefs can be untrue—in which case it becomes obvious that belief about biological sex is distinct from biological sex itself.

…like everything else in life. What we believe about a thing is not the thing, but we ought to believe the truth about the thing.

Don Johnson wrote:

As per an earlier post, I quoted from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. From that definition, gender and biological sex are overlapping terms (at least). It is hard to tell if one is a subset of the other or if they overlap.

Sure. In order to “overlap,” they must be distinct and related. We don’t usually describe two identical concepts as “overlapping.” An example that comes close might be “car” and “automobile.” They refer to the same thing in many contexts… until you’re getting on a train or trolley. Then we’re talking about two distinct, though overlapping, concepts for “car,” but we would not use “automobile” in that context.

I’ve been meaning to do this for a while, and this is as good a time as any…

Definitions of Gender

Merriam Webster

1

a: a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms

b: membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass

c : an inflectional form (see INFLECTION sense 2a) showing membership in such a subclass

2

a: SEX sense 1a

the feminine gender

b: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Oxford has a lot of detail. It doesn’t seem to be structured in order of current usage. It’s in order of types of meaning, or something like that.

1. Grammar….

2.

a. A class of things or beings distinguished by having certain characteristics in common; (as a mass noun) these regarded collectively; kind, sort. Obsolete. ….

b. That which has been engendered (gender v.¹ 2b); product, offspring. Obsolete. rare. ….

3.

a. gen. Males or females viewed as a group; = sex n.¹ 1. Also: the property or fact of belonging to one of these groups.

But here’s the really interesting bit, for its history portion…

3.

b. Psychology and Sociology (originally U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one’s sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way.

1945 Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. 58 228 In the grade-school years, too, gender (which is the socialized obverse of sex) is a fixed line of demarkation, the qualifying terms being ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’.

1950 Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. 63 312 It [sc. Margaret Mead’s Male and Female] informs the reader upon ‘gender’ as well as upon ‘sex’, upon masculine and feminine rôles as well as upon male and female and their reproductive functions.

1968 Life 21 June 89 When the separation of fashions according to gender began to vanish, retailers discovered a bonanza.

1978 D. Pearce in Urban & Social Change Rev. 11 i–ii. 35/1 The major implication for policy of both the feminization of poverty and the..labor-force participation of welfare mothers is that gender cannot be ignored.

1981 Heresies No. 12. 67/3 Our ideology and practice of sex roles construct..two mutually exclusive categories, that is, genders.

2007 New Yorker 6 Aug. 13/2 There’s no breaking news here—identity and gender have been on the contemporary-art docket for years.

It might be fair to say that in the context of sexual ethics, what’s happening is that the sociological definition of “gender” is becoming the popular definition.

Cambridge goes for simplicity…

a group of people in a society who share particular qualities or ways of behaving which that society associates with being male, female, or another identity:

• I think all genders are able to care for children equally.
• Those old films are full of racial and gender stereotypes.
• Their goal is to eliminate gender bias in access to sports for children.
• Germany’s top court has ruled that parliament must legally recognize a third gender.
• Our lab is committed to gender equality in the sciences and promotes men and women to senior positions in equal numbers.
• “The gender that you identify with isn’t always the same as your biological sex,” he explained.
• There can be a lot of physical variation within one gender as well as between genders.

Much of that may reflect a recent trend, but the underlying reality has been recognized for a long time: even in OT times, verses like Deut 22:5 show that there were things associated with biological sex (garments) that are not biological sex, but ought to be consistent with biological sex.

Which takes me back to this point (I added “we” where I accidentally left it out before…

Aaron Blumer wrote: I get that some do not want to call “the things [we] believe and do that are associated with biological sex” gender. Fair enough. I have yet to hear what a better term would be.

I doubt that we really disagree (1) that beliefs and behaviors associated with biological sex are distinct from biological sex. I also don’t think we disagree (2) that there is an ought here: humans and human societies ought to get the relationship between the two right as a matter of ethics. Pretty sure we’d also agree (3) that individuals, families, and societies are helped to thrive if we get that relationship right.

Our only real point of disagreement is probably what to call “beliefs and behaviors associated with biological sex.” I think we (a) need a word for that and that (b) we already have one that would probably do. Dan and Don, it looks like you don’t agree that “gender” will do. Do you also disagree that we need a word?

Aaron Blumer wrote: Our only real point of disagreement is probably what to call “beliefs and behaviors associated with biological sex.” I think we (a) need a word for that and that (b) we already have one that would probably do. Dan and Don, it looks like you don’t agree that “gender” will do. Do you also disagree that we need a word?

I believe using "gender" in the way you are pointlessly surrenders something that we shouldn't surrender.

I do believe that "gender" and "sex" are synonymous, but not precisely. The connotation of "sex" refers to all of what makes a person "male" or "female," but points mostly to the person's role in sexual reproduction and surrounding attributes. On the other hand, the connotation of "gender" refers to all of what makes a person "male" or "female," but points mostly to all the non-sexual aspects of the differences. (I would think that Don would also agree with this.)

The difference might be similar to the connotation difference between saying someone is "sexy" vs "beautiful." Someone might mean the same thing and they might mean something different.

--- I next want to turn to the Scriptural expressions, but are we on the same page at this point?