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

Aaron Blumer wrote: 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.

Well that is the nub. The problem is that it isn't just my arbitrary definition of gender that is at issue, but common usage for years has often meant the two terms mean exactly the same thing.

So, your suggestion that a word is needed to describe behaviour/beliefs as opposed to biology, and you (in this discussion at least) have wanted to use the word gender.

The problem is that most people still live in a world where it overlaps with sex in such a way that it means (often) exactly the same thing. When the 'behaviorists' want to use it exclusively as something different, communication fails and it seems like the 'behaviourist' is talking nonsense.

I suspect that confusion is precisely what the activists want to create. That's why they twist language into pretzels to suit their agenda. It was the tactic of neo-orthodoxy, the 'gay' agenda (another hijacked word), and I am sure other movements through history. 1984 and all that.

Don Johnson wrote: I suspect that confusion is precisely what the activists want to create. That’s why they twist language into pretzels to suit their agenda.

This is my thinking as well. I understand that behavior is not the same as an inherent condition. However, using the word “gender” to describe behaviors when it hasn’t really meant that at all is indeed giving in. I know society will and does do it, but I don’t have to go along and agree with their redefinition. Another word that is not confusing can be used by us, even if the world would rather conflate the terms for their agenda.

Don Johnson wrote: The problem is that most people still live in a world where it overlaps with sex in such a way that it means (often) exactly the same thing. When the ‘behaviorists’ want to use it exclusively as something different, communication fails and it seems like the ‘behaviourist’ is talking nonsense.

I think this is the case for a shrinking minority.

I’ve argued that our use of “gender” in a way that makes the word uselessly redundant doesn’t have biblical support. I’ve also argued that there are two genuine, distinct but related, biblical categories in this matter of sexual ethics and that we’re not helping the wrong side win if we clearly distinguish these categories and teach believers what Scripture reveals about they relate. In the culture more broadly, natural law arguments are better, but these still rely on clear thinking about the categories. Clinging to language that confuses them will not help.

The social left did not invent the distinction between biological sex and the things we believe and do in relation to it.

I recently listened to a sermon Kevin preached at Bethlehem College and Seminary. I thought he handled these issues well.

Aaron wrote:

I’ve argued that our use of “gender” in a way that makes the word uselessly redundant doesn’t have biblical support. I’ve also argued that there are two genuine, distinct but related, biblical categories in this matter of sexual ethics and that we’re not helping the wrong side win if we clearly distinguish these categories and teach believers what Scripture reveals about they relate. In the culture more broadly, natural law arguments are better, but these still rely on clear thinking about the categories. Clinging to language that confuses them will not help.

The social left did not invent the distinction between biological sex and the things we believe and do in relation to it.

The thing that's missing from your argument from the Scriptures is the idea that those who defy biology with their clothing choices have a "belief" about what they are that defies biology. It is more likely that the Biblical Author was pointing to an illicit desire to be the other gender, but not a belief that one is another gender. I doubt very much that anyone in those days even dreamt that one could be another gender than their sex in any sense.

What about adding the word "expression" after "gender"? Could "gender expression" be a more accurate term to use to describe the behavior that is based on one's beliefs about one's biological sex?

For example, if a man dresses/acts in what is commonly understood as a culturally feminine manner, one could say that he is a biological male who is choosing to display feminine gender expression. This terminology may, I think, be less problematic/confusing than saying he is biologically male with a female/feminine gender.

I agree that to many of us the term "gender" has been closely linked to biological sex for most of our lives. In fact, on numerous forms I've filled out before, the terms have been used interchangeably, where I've been asked to check a box beside either "male" or "female." On some of these forms it will say "sex," while on other forms it will say "gender" before asking me to check "male" or "female." And, in recent years, I've noticed there's sometimes also an "other" category.

So what do both sides in this discussion think of this terminology of "gender expression" to denote the way in which a person behaves based on what they believe to be true about their biological sex?

I think using just "gender" is confusing/inaccurate. But "gender expression" expresses the difference between biological reality and a person's behavior.

I do think it's important to think carefully before adopting new definitions for words based on their current usage in culture. Redefining words to make sinful behavior seem more tolerable is one of the oldest tricks in the world's book. However, when trying to communicate with people in our culture we may, at times, have to find ways to use terminology they're familiar with in a way that doesn't cause us to compromise. It can sometimes be difficult.

What do you think about using "gender expression" as a way to explain behavior related to whether or not they're acting in accordance with their biological sex? Does it offer clarity? Could it still be seen as an unbiblical form of compromise? If not this term, what would be a better term to use? Perhaps we should simply continue to say what people have said for many years; that a man who behaved that way was acting/dressing "feminine"?

So what do both sides in this discussion think of this terminology of "gender expression" to denote the way in which a person behaves based on what they believe to be true about their biological sex?

You add "what they believe" here. I'm with you until that point. If they believe they are female when they are in fact biologically male, that is delusion. I think that's very very rare, however, and not what we are talking about.

The trans person knows that he's biologically male. I would argue that when he is desperate to be called "her," he is showing that he is insecure in his female identity because, really, he knows what he is - he just doesn't like it. He wants to be female.

Other-gender-expression choices:

If you restrict "gender expression" to be behavior (wearing a dress (consciously choosing "female" attire), calling himself "her"), then yes, that would fit as a "gender expression" and "sex expression" would also be ok.

Personality:

But what if he is saying, "I love to bake cakes and wear nice clothes. People say I should be a woman. And my counselor says I actually am a woman."? Then I would say, that doesn't have to do with gender confusion or "gender expression." You can be a man and like new shoes and style. There's no suggestion that Joseph's coat of many colors was feminine or trans-ish. You can be a man and like to bake. Or love to care for children and want to be a kindergarten teacher. That's personality. Same for a woman who is a hard-nose business person whose nickname is "the negotiator." That's a relatively unusual trait in women.

To say that certain personalities are "male" and certain ones are "female," is to stereotype the sexes (or genders) in unhelpful, false ways.

Dan Miller wrote: You add "what they believe" here. I'm with you until that point. If they believe they are female when they are in fact biologically male, that is delusion. I think that's very very rare, however, and not what we are talking about.

Actually, that IS exactly what we are talking about. Have you ever discussed the mindset of trans people with any trans people? If you think this thought process in trans people is very rare, then you simply aren't aware of how trans people are thinking. They DO actually believe that their bodies are not reflective of the gender of their mind, and there is no "want" involved in terms of desiring to have that disjunction. My non-binary son certainly has had no desire for his particular disjunction.

Kevin Miller wrote: They DO actually believe that their bodies are not reflective of the gender of their mind, and there is no "want" involved in terms of desiring to have that disjunction.

I am not sure what you are objecting to.

Kevin Miller wrote:

Actually, that IS exactly what we are talking about. Have you ever discussed the mindset of trans people with any trans people? If you think this thought process in trans people? If you think this thought process in trans people is very rare, then you simply aren't aware of how trans people are thinking. They DO actually believe that their bodies are not reflective of the gender of their mind, and there is no "want" involved in terms of desiring to have that disjunction. My non-binary son certainly has had no desire for his particular disjunction.

This now gets very personal, which changes the discussion considerably. I don't know you or your family personally. I can't speak to any specifics with regard to your family. That being the case, whatever you say about your child will be one-sided here. I'm not going to address it specifically. I don't grant you the right to speak authoritatively on the issue because of your family experience and neither do I judge you for it.

Dan Miller wrote: This now gets very personal, which changes the discussion considerably.

I'm not sure how a personal connection changes the discussion significantly. We've spent 4 pages talking about an issue that is very, very personal to many people, both to the people who struggle with it themselves and to their family members. Any church or school that desires to have a gender curriculum is going to have to deal with the very personal nature of the issue.

I fully recognize that my opinions about the issues are only as "authoritative" as anyone else's opinions about the issues. Perhaps I failed to use the words "in my opinion" as much as I could have in this thread, but I see other people also making assertions that could be construed as "authoritative." I can appreciate the perspective that one's personal experiences shouldn't automatically be seen as valid in all cases and neither should they be automatically be judged as false. (At least that was the perspective I took from your comment. I hope I was reading you correctly.)

Still, isn't it generally true that looking at an issue through the eyes of someone who has experienced it first-hand can usually be a helpful part of a discussion?

Dan Miller wrote:

But what if he is saying, “I love to bake cakes and wear nice clothes. People say I should be a woman. And my counselor says I actually am a woman.”? Then I would say, that doesn’t have to do with gender confusion or “gender expression.” You can be a man and like new shoes and style. There’s no suggestion that Joseph’s coat of many colors was feminine or trans-ish. You can be a man and like to…

I don’t think I disagree with any of that part. The question for a Christian curriculum on gender would be how do we know what’s important and what isn’t in the area of distinctive behavior for male vs. female? How do we process all the myriad social and cultural aspects in a biblical way?

Conservative Christians haven’t had a great track record with that—or we have a really bad track record now. A large segment of my parents’ generation was very much in the mold of “Women should raise children and care for their husbands; husbands should have careers.” Along with that, there were lots of attitudes about what was “feminine” and what was “masculine.” Cooking. Cleaning, colors, hobbies, attention to attractive appearance, who asks whom on a date, etc.

Even most really conservative Christians have mostly left that behind now. Either we were wrong then or we’re wrong now. Either way, there’s a gap in our application of Scripture as to how we process cultural changes in this area.

Aaron wrote: The question for a Christian curriculum on gender would be how do we know what’s important and what isn’t in the area of distinctive behavior for male vs. female?

Aaron wrote: Along with that, there were lots of attitudes about what was “feminine” and what was “masculine.” Cooking. Cleaning, colors, hobbies, attention to attractive appearance, who asks whom on a date, etc.

Sure. Dating-courting-marriage is an area of confusion. Church polity as well. Both, IMO, with over-restriction of female "rights."

EXAMPLE: Ruth proposed marriage to Boaz. That might fly in the face of 1980's fundy dating norms (and even today?). BUT - that doesn’t make Ruth "trans" or "non-binary" or even masculine. She is a woman who did something we reserve for men.

I would agree that nothing Ruth did would “make Ruth ‘trans’ or ‘non-binary’ or even masculine.”

She is a woman who did something we reserve for men.

The category you’ve described here as “something we reserve for men” is the one that I’ve been trying to carve out and give a name to, though it includes both sexes, so “things we reserve for one sex” would cover it.

A problem I’m seeing in a lot of rhetoric on what’s changing in our culture is that traditions and assumptions in the category of “things we reserve for…” are conflated with two other things: 1) What is built in as part of our biology as male or female (i.e. “determined by our biological sex”) and 2) What is ethically right for thinking and behaving in ways that befit our biological sex.

With “2)” there is certainly some overlap, but also a lot of confusion. Here’s where I’m coming from: In the era of my childhood there was a list of “things we reserve for males” and “things we reserve for females.” By my college years, that had changed some—it shrank. By my seminary years, it had shrunk some more. Today a good bit more. And I’m not talking about people outside the faith. I mean for committed, doctrinally serious, conservative Christians the list has shrunk.

It’s irrational to arbitrarily think that we must have had it right when I was a kid, and every change since then has been a decline. What was magic about the 1970s? Go back to my parent’s generation, why should we think they got it right in the 1940s?

Why not make the “year they got it right” 1785? 1421? 1018?

The case can be made that worldview shifts in the West after the Reformation (think Enlightenment, existentialism, modernism, postmodernism, etc) show a pattern of ideological decline. And the assumption is frequently made that cultural changes must be declining with the ideological decline. But this is really hard to prove in any valid way—for the simple reason that all philosophies/ideologies/worldviews have some truth in them. So who’s to say this or that cultural change isn’t a change that goes with something true?

It isn’t sound to argue that “worldview declined, and this feature of culture changed, therefore this cultural change is bad.” It leaves out too many possibilities.

All that to say this: we don’t have an adequate “gender curriculum” if we don’t (a) own up to what we don’t know as well as what we do know and also (b) if we don’t exert some effort into separating “traditional things we reserve for this sex” from “things that are built into/determined by the biology of being this sex” from “things that are ethically right for those that are this sex.” (Yes, these do overlap but also each have significant amounts of non-overlap… swap the right terms in for birds, cats, and dogs in the diagram below)

Edit to add. I came across this recently… OK, I looked for it. Got curious.

Has Pink Always Been a “Girly” Color? (No) - Brittanica

This is an involved discussion but basically some of this is culturally defined. That does not necessarily make it irrelevant to Christians. We must dress/act/communicate in ways that indicate our sex in our culture. In some cultures that may be much different than ours. That does not mean that it should not be considered. If you live in a culture where a man with long hair and earrings is effeminate, you shouldn’t have them. Just because the culture changes doesn’t mean we no longer need to apply the principle.

A somewhat limited comparison is dress. Fifty years ago, most men wore suits and women wore dresses to church. If a man wore shorts and a tee shirt to church it would have been seen as disrespectful/irreverent. Now it would be nearly impossible to dress in a way that would be interpreted that way. But I’m sure we can all think of things that would still qualify. My midwestern wife is still amazed at the way people dress in Washington state. The fact is the culture changed here and it has not changed as much there. We should dress in a way in the culture we are in to convey what we should be conveying. Same goes for gender.