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

Dan Miller wrote: I believe using “gender” in the way you are pointlessly surrenders something that we shouldn’t surrender.

What does saying “sex and gender are distinct but related and need to be related rightly” surrender?

(Edit to add: On the original topic, there is a new gender curriculum from CBMW and FRC. I have not seen what’s in it.)

I’m not sure I understand what your position is - so it’s premature to say you’re surrendering something. How about the rest of my last post?

On this quote

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)

Doesn't the quote assume the overlap? If someone is identifying as a man (when she is in fact a woman), she is claiming that she is an identifiable thing that she is not. The identifiable thing is a biological sex, or a gender, they are the same thing. The fact that someone identifies as a gender opposite to reality isn't simply acting in a certain way. It is saying I am a certain thing.

I don't think you can split gender and sex into two distinct things. They are the same thing with shades of meaning, not different things altogether.

Aaron Blumer wrote: What does saying “sex and gender are distinct but related and need to be related rightly” surrender?

Distinctness is not what is being surrendered. If you think of “biological sex” and “behavior” as two ends of a spectrum, “gender,” even as used the way it is being twisted today, is still much closer to sex than to simply behaviors. Using that word to describe “behavior that is associated with a particular sex,” that (in my mind) is going to mangle that word to where moderns want it to be — namely that someone can declare that their “gender” is Y when biological sex is X, and expect that we agree with that.

I won’t argue that there needs to be a word that describes the behavior side of things, and maybe mannish or effeminate are too strong in some cases, but they are better than describing an effeminate man as “female in gender,” or a mannish woman as “male in gender.” Gender may not be *exactly* the same thing as sex, but I agree with those who say they are still pretty close to synonymous, and should be treated that way. Not doing so does indeed seem like surrender on the point of making the terms woman and man untethered from the biological reality, which of course, they are not.

A more complete response…

Dan Miller wrote:

I believe using “gender” in the way you are pointlessly surrenders something that we shouldn’t surrender.

What is surrendered?

Dan Miller wrote:

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…

“synonymous, but not precisely” means they are distinct. So we really do agree on that point. Your description of “sex” in biological terms seems to fit well with Don’s chromosomes idea. I don’t dispute that. I don’t think anybody serious does, as far as “biological sex” goes. It’s a bit weird and confusing that some currently like to refer to this as “sex assigned at birth.” That language begs for misunderstanding because it sounds like we just sort of make it up on the spot, which I don’t believe is the intent. But that’s another subtopic.

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.

So if we were to Venn diagram, you would make “gender” a larger circle that completely encloses “sex” as a smaller one? I’m not sure what I think of that idea.

But this phrase is important: “ ‘gender’… points mostly to all the non-sexual aspects of the differences.”

We would agree on this point, sounds like, assuming “non-sexual” there means “non-biological-sexual.” Gender is always associated with the idea of biological sex in some way but there isn’t anything biological about the clothes we wear or hobbies we enjoy or the kind of work we do—granting some exceptions to the latter: most females do not want to be NFL linebackers and wouldn’t be good at it, due to biological factors. Men clearly have some biological limitations when it comes to caring for infants.

So there’s some fuzziness at the boundary between gender matters that are clearly not biology (pick the century and region: do men wear skirts and women wear hats or women wear skirts and men wear hats?) vs. matters that are at the boundary (nexus?) of biology and gender.

We talk about “gender roles” a lot, and have for at least a century. The phrase communicates that the role is not itself biological but is associated with biology. For at least as long as we’ve had “women in the workforce” (as in paid, outside-the-home workforce), folks have been debating “gender roles” in relation to types of work. Even the most traditional among us don’t see that the way our parents or grandparents probably did.

I’m rambling, though, so I’ll mercifully stop… soon. 😄

Going back to the OP, a really good Christian curriculum on gender should explore how to biblically approach things like roles, hobbies, favorite colors (is loving pink un-masculine in any biblical sense?), etc. (Should we try to correct little boys who like flowers, pastel colors, and making “pretty things”? Are these matters arbitrary but still useful for forming a child’s self-understanding in a way that affirms his/her God-given biology? These are no longer trivial questions in our day, if they ever were.)

Really? Some clothes are made specifically for male and female biological characteristics. I’m not sure you can assert that.

Trying to catch up a bit here…

dcbii wrote: Using that word to describe “behavior that is associated with a particular sex,” that (in my mind) is going to mangle that word to where moderns want it to be — namely that someone can declare that their “gender” is Y when biological sex is X, and expect that we agree with that.

Well, that people can do this is a fact. They do it every day. The debate is over whether they should. This circles back to why I keep belaboring the distinction. Our thinking and teaching needs to focus on the ethical vs. the natural.

I got a chance to look a bit at CBMW’s new gender curriculum the other day. There’s a lot of good in it. I did notice some “determined by” language though in reference to gender and sex. I think this goes in the wrong direction. Why are we using process/nature language where we should be using ethical language?

Biblically, I don’t think we should be thinking in terms of what “determines” what. We should be thinking in terms of what humans ought to believe and do. For the broader audience of society at large, our focus should shift mostly to what behaviors help humans thrive.

It’s a curious thing: Most of the time, as Christians, we’re strong on the point that our biology should not control us. We’re not mere animals. We don’t have to obey our urges. But then, when we get on the topic of sex and gender, we want to get all “biology (biological sex) determines behavior (gender).” This seems incongruous to me. I’m sure I’m not the first to notice it.

So what I’m saying is that a better Christian emphasis is on what’s right to believe and do in reference to our biology, not trying to say belief and behavior are “determined.”

dcbii wrote: but they are better than describing an effeminate man as “female in gender,” or a mannish woman as “male in gender.” Gender may not be *exactly* the same thing as sex, but I agree with those who say they are still pretty close to synonymous, and should be treated that way.

We have two problems here.

1. Phrases like “female in gender”/”male in gender” with verbs like “is” or “identifies,” etc. carry a lot of “therefore…” baggage. So I agree it’s problematic language. But, at the same time, it’s probably not paste that will ever go back into the tube. So the challenge going forward is how to deal with these cultural shifts in a Christian way and not get sidetracked into debates that are tertiary or even points of agreement.

2. How to develop and teach theology (including practical theology) with adequate precision and persuasive power for future generations. Plenty of conservative Christians my age are skeptical of a lot of the claims and assumptions of traditional teaching on these topics. You can bet the younger generations are far more so. So we need language that can be clear and precise—recognizing what humans in fact can do vs. what they ought to do vs. what we don’t really know one way or the other. And so on.

I’ve seen the observation in multiple places I don’t recall, but have also observed it often in action: a small thesis is inherently easier to support than a big one. (It’s way easier to prove “this mug is red” than “all mugs are red.”)

So in teaching and apologetics, it’s often better to make a smaller claim that is stronger than a larger claim that is weaker. In a “gender curriculum” aimed at equipping future believers to deal with these cultural shifts, we’re really better off making strong small claims… but we seem to lean toward expansive, weak ones.

Edit to add…

Don: Really? Some clothes are made specifically for male and female biological characteristics. I’m not sure you can assert that.

“Made for” does not equal “are.” (Made for biological characteristics does not equal biological characteristics). But the point is that the category does exist: things we wear that convey sexual meaning but are not biological. I’ve already piled on examples of this… I’m tempted to add a few more (I noted skirts and hats in that post), but surely it’s not really a point of disagreement. The point is that there is definitely some stuff we arbitrarily associate with male and female and there’s nothing inherently male or female about them.

Aaron, I think there are two flaws with what you are saying. First, yes, "sex" and "gender" have distinctions, but they are not distinct. They overlap in some ways, so you can't make precise statements differentiating between them. Second, "gender" as a noun is a thing, it isn't behaviour. It may be said to describe "behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" (Merriam Webster), so it has a connection with behaviour, but it describes traits, not the behaviour.

In other words, I think you are either misusing the word gender in your argumentation, or else accepting on its face some of the argumentation of the activists. (Maybe there are other alternatives... this could be a false dichotomy!)

In any case, this is where I keep having a hard time understanding you. When you say gender, I don't know what you mean.

Aaron Blumer wrote:

Dan Miller wrote:

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…

“synonymous, but not precisely” means they are distinct. So we really do agree on that point. Your description of “sex” in biological terms seems to fit well with Don’s chromosomes idea. I don’t dispute that. I don’t think anybody serious does, as far as “biological sex” goes. It’s a bit weird and confusing that some currently like to refer to this as “sex assigned at birth.” That language begs for misunderstanding because it sounds like we just sort of make it up on the spot, which I don’t believe is the intent. But that’s another subtopic.

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.

So if we were to Venn diagram, you would make “gender” a larger circle that completely encloses “sex” as a smaller one? I’m not sure what I think of that idea.

But this phrase is important: “ ‘gender’… points mostly to all the non-sexual aspects of the differences.”

Well, the "..." you put in removed something pretty important to me. What I said was that “gender” refers to all of what makes a person “male” or “female,” but points mostly to all the non-sexual aspects of the differences.

Do we agree?

I see "sex" and "gender" as synonyms with different connotations.

You see "sex" and "gender" as distinct.

Deciding whether you and I agree is as simple as deciding if "gender" and "sex" are the same. I think calling them distinct fails to properly understand the flavor difference between them. If there is a distinction, it is like the difference between a proper cappuccino and a flat white.

-----

Dan Miller wrote:

I believe using “gender” in the way you are pointlessly surrenders something that we shouldn’t surrender.

Aaron Wrote:

What is surrendered?

What is surrendered is the idea of a distinct model of male-female-ness.

The Bible doesn't use "gender" or "sex." It says "male" or "female." So we have a category (male-female-ness) that is either M or F. That's it. Call it "sex" or call it "gender" - I don't care. But to say, "Oh, there's 'sex' and then there's the distinct 'gender'" is to talk about male-female-ness in a way that the Bible does not.

I suspect you will appeal to natural law here (a category I very much affirm as you know) but I don’t understand this statement:

”Biblically, I don’t think we should be thinking in terms of what “determines” what. We should be thinking in terms of what humans ought to believe and do. For the broader audience of society at large, our focus should shift mostly to what behaviors help humans thrive.”

How do you arrive at ought “biblically” without “determines.” Does not the same God who created us male and female tell us what we ought to do? Our gender (you would probably be more comfortable with the word sex) is determined from birth. It is reflected of course in nature but fundamentally we affirm this because the scriptures teach it.

Now granted, unbelievers don’t accept that reasoning but we are talking about why “we” believe it.

Aaron Blumer wrote: I got a chance to look a bit at CBMW’s new gender curriculum the other day. There’s a lot of good in it. I did notice some “determined by” language though in reference to gender and sex. I think this goes in the wrong direction. Why are we using process/nature language where we should be using ethical language?

Because I think denying "nature language" is denying the brain reality in certain situations. You talked earlier about a gender curriculum examining things like hobbies and favorite colors. What exactly is it that causes a person to have a favorite color? Does a person just randomly pick a favorite color from among other equally liked colors, or does one's brain "fire" more strongly when looking at one color? Isn't that "firing" a part of the "nature" of one's brain cells? Can one tell an individual to just have a different favorite color than what their brain tells them to like? I suppose one could tell them to make that ethical choice, but actually doing it would be going against what their brain is telling them. Of course, when one is dealing with what truly is an ethical decision (and I don't think favorite colors qualify), then one absolutely would have to make a decision to go against what one's brain tells them.

I mentioned on the first page of this thread that gender could be considered as a biological condition of one's brain. I do think the curse of sin has made it possible for one's brain wiring in regards to gender to be different from one's biological sex. I don't think people are making things up, or just being rebellious to God's order, when they describe their feelings that their body doesn't match up with what their brain is telling them of their gender. They still need to make cultural decisions that are in line with their biological sex, but realizing that their struggle is a hard-wiring struggle is going to make the people who struggle more aware of the strength they will need to affirm their God-given biology, and it will make those who try to help them much more compassionate to the struggle.

Don Johnson wrote: They overlap in some ways, so you can’t make precise statements differentiating between them.

You don’t have to able to do that for things to be “distinct.” As an everyday example, my beliefs and actions with my checking account are distinct from the account. I may believe I have a million bucks. I might go to an auction and have a winning bid on a rare penny for a million dollars.

My beliefs and behaviors are linked to by actual account. They inevitably overlap. But what I believe and do has no impact on how much money is actually there. Some of the behaviors involved are even inseparably related to the account, such as writing a check. These things are inseparable but distinct.

I actually learned to think this way reading about the Trinity. Inseparable. Always inter-related. Distinct.

Dan Miller wrote:

What is surrendered is the idea of a distinct model of male-female-ness.

The Bible doesn’t use “gender” or “sex.” It says “male” or “female.” So we have a category (male-female-ness) that is either M or F. That’s it. Call it “sex” or call it “gender” - I don’t care. But to say, “Oh, there’s ‘sex’ and then there’s the distinct ‘gender’ ” is to talk about male-female-ness in a way that the Bible does not.

First, let’s acknowledge that we talk about a lot of things in a way the Bible does not. That’s OK. “Trinity” for example. Not a Bible word. “Cessationism,” not a Bible word. Premillennialism. There are many examples.

In this case, the Bible makes the distinction I’m talking about logically necessary. But this discussion is full circle multiple times now on that point, so I’m not sure how much value there is in pointing this out again. I can do it a slightly different way.

Here’s the first phrase of Deut 22.5 again, in ESV…

• “a woman shall not wear a man’s garment”

Now let’s break it down:

• “a woman [biological sex] shall not wear [not biological sex] a man’s [biological sex] garment [not biological sex]”

The act of wearing and the thing called a garment are both distinct from biological sex, but are associated with biological sex. A thing is not “associated with” itself. These are obviously distinct, since the command implies a woman could actually put on “a man’s garment” and her biological sex would not change any way whatsoever.

Here’s an alternative

But I think we’re in the weeds on this. The distinction between biological sex and the things we believe and do that are associated with biological sex is beyond reasonable dispute. I can’t believe there is really any disagreement on that point. Chalk it up to difficulties of communication.

As an alternative to “gender,” it might work OK, in a thorough curriculum on gender, to use phrases like “attitudes, perceptions, roles, customs, and clothing” to head units or chapters on these things. It could be really unwieldly, but might work well enough. It might be worth it for this advantage alone: people are less likely to object to sentences like this one: “Attitudes, perceptions, roles, customs, and clothing are distinct from biological sex, which is why we need to understand how to properly relate them.”

But this is kind of kicking the can down the road. In the long run, our teaching on this isn’t going to be as durable if we’re still muddy on how fundamentally distinct things relate to one another. So it would be better to tidy up our thinking.

josh p wrote:

”Biblically, I don’t think we should be thinking in terms of what “determines” what. We should be thinking in terms of what humans ought to believe and do. For the broader audience of society at large, our focus should shift mostly to what behaviors help humans thrive.”

How do you arrive at ought “biblically” without “determines.” Does not the same God who created us male and female tell us what we ought to do? Our gender (you would probably be more comfortable with the word sex) is determined from birth. It is reflected of course in nature but fundamentally we affirm this because the scriptures teach it.

My objection to “determines” is in the sense of natural cause and effect, as in “ensures that a result will happen.” I do agree that biological sex determines some ethics. It determines some things that we ought to believe and do. It doesn’t make anything happen. Humans have to choose to obey or not obey. Nonbelievers wouldn’t be looking at in those terms, but still have to make the ethical choices for whatever reasons they make them.

Kevin Miller wrote: Because I think denying “nature language” is denying the brain reality in certain situations. You talked earlier about a gender curriculum examining things like hobbies and favorite colors. What exactly is it that causes a person to have a favorite color? Does a person just randomly pick a favorite color from among other equally liked colors, or does one’s brain “fire” more strongly when looking…

If we’re doing distinctively biblical/Christian thinking on this, we have to acknowledge that there’s just a whole lot we don’t know about (a) brain and biological sex (b) brain and mind and (c) brain vs. mind on things such as color preferences, hobbies we enjoy, etc.

I suspect it wouldn’t take a lot of digging to find regions/historical periods/cultures where colors we (20th-21st century western culture) associate with femininity were or are associated with masculinity. I’m inclined to think that almost all of that sort of thing is cultural.

There are some differences in brain chemistry between male and female, but to me, that seems to be in the category of “biological sex.” Belief about oneself is another thing. From Christian point of view, that’s mind not brain, though the two relate in a way Scripture keeps pretty mysterious.

Kevin Miller wrote: They still need to make cultural decisions that are in line with their biological sex, but realizing that their struggle is a hard-wiring struggle is going to make the people who struggle more aware of the strength they will need to affirm their God-given biology, and it will make those who try to help them much more compassionate to the struggle.

I think I agree with the spirit of this. I don’t have any confidence on the role of the brain in all this, but I do think gender dysphoria is a real thing that happens to some—and even if it weren’t, do we owe less compassion to a person who is simply confused? So the whole topic needs to be wrapped in a front-of-mind awareness that we’re all sinners who are in various ways broken, struggling and confused—yet trying to help other sinners who are broken, struggling, and confused, perhaps in different ways from us (or perhaps not).

This is often not the tone I’m seeing in our rhetoric. (What I’ve had time to read in the CBMW curriculum so far, though, is better than I expected on that point. So kudos to them for that.)

Aaron Blumer wrote: My beliefs and behaviors are linked to by actual account. They inevitably overlap. But what I believe and do has no impact on how much money is actually there. Some of the behaviors involved are even inseparably related to the account, such as writing a check. These things are inseparable but distinct.

I think your analogy doesn't wash. Yes, your beliefs about your account is related to your account, but are they ever actually the same thing as your account?

With "gender" and "sex" we are using two words that often mean exactly the same thing. They aren't just related in that usage, they are alternative words for the same thing.

My beliefs about my account are never the same thing as my account, even if I have managed to perfectly reconcile my bank statement and I know exactly how much is in there. I can't go and buy something with my beliefs, I have to somehow actually access my account, not with my beliefs but with a cheque (notice what I did there!) or a debit card or some such instrument.

Here’s the first phrase of Deut 22.5 again, in ESV…

• “a woman shall not wear a man’s garment”

Now let’s break it down:

• “a woman [biological sex] shall not wear [not biological sex] a man’s [biological sex] garment [not biological sex]”

I agree that “a woman” and “a man's” are terms referring to biological sex.

The issue I have with your breakdown is that if you strip them away, there’s nothing left that necessarily refers to sex or gender (or even male-female-ness).

EDIT: it becomes, “a ______ shall not wear ______ garment.”

The those blanks could make the command age, religious, or even species specific.

Don Johnson wrote:

I think your analogy doesn’t wash. Yes, your beliefs about your account is related to your account, but are they ever actually the same thing as your account?

With “gender” and “sex” we are using two words that often mean exactly the same thing. They aren’t just related in that usage, they are alternative words for the same thing.

Well, this would be a genuine point of disagreement, then. My view is that we should stop using the terms to sometimes mean the same thing and sometimes meant something distinct. This causes confusion in an area where we need clarity.

• Category 1: What we are biologically
• Category 2: Things we believe and do that need to be properly related to category 1

These are real and always-distinct categories. We need terms for them. When we’re preaching to audiences that already agree with us on 99%-100% of what we might say on the topic, we can get away with being sloppy, but in a curriculum—as the OP suggests—we’d need to assume audiences that are at least somewhat skeptical. We’d need to be more precise.

The issue I have with your breakdown is that if you strip them away, there’s nothing left that necessarily refers to sex or gender (or even male-female-ness).

My breakdown does not “strip them away.” I’ve consistently said that gender refers to beliefs and behaviors that are related to biological sex. Without that relationship, there is no category.