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

It would be enough to have curriculum on biblical anthropology with a chapter or two on gender.

But the curriculum really needs to also include at least 3 things that tend to get overlooked in our reaction to these cultural trends.

1. Gender and bological sex are not the same thing (e.g. in OT times, ‘dressing like a man’ (Deut 22.5) meant wearing a long flowing robe. This is gender. Today, my wearing a long flowing robe might send a different gender message in our culture. The relationship between gender and culture is indeed “fluid.” In Moses’ day, even if a man wore ‘a woman’s clothing’, his biological sex would be the same. The two are distinct.)
2. Gender and biological sex ought to align as a moral principle. It’s better for all involved.
3. The fact that there is confusion in this area in our culture today doesn’t make it more important than all the other problems and sins in the Bible that have been with us for thousands of years. Students need to be taught not to lose perspective in response to social changes—and avoid become preoccupied with one topic that is lately a hot one.

It's worth noting that the Bible writers did know of a sort of transition surgery, the making of eunuchs for service, especially in the harems of kings. It is possible that some young men offered themselves up for this because of factors like "not being interested in marriage" and thinking "taking care of a harem seems to be easier work than working the fields".

On the flip side, needless surgeries tended to be lethal because of infection. Really it's the same reason you hear about infanticide in the Bible, but not abortion. Doing abortion instead of infanticide increased the risk of maternal death.

But that noted, Deuteronomy 17:16-17 prohibits the king from having a lot of horses, gold, or wives, which would put a brake on the creation of eunuchs (as well as offensive wars--horses pulled chariots, bulls and oxen pulled plows, and gold paid for wars...and harems). There is also the reality that Exodus 21:10 tells a man that if he takes a new wife, he cannot reduce the food, clothing, and ....loving....provided to the first.

I guarantee you that the polygamous kings of Israel violated these principles, to put it mildly.

In the New Testament, you've got 1 Corinthians 7's admonition to live in the condition in which you were called. We might add to the list "if you were called as a man, do not mutilate yourself to look like a woman". I think it's at least compatible with that mood by Paul.

All in all, though, we need to appeal to general revelation and the fact that once a breast or testicle is in the specimen bag, it doesn't grow back, and it doesn't reattach, and whatever is found in its place really doesn't function like "factory equipment". And those who carelessly drive people to making this step ought to face legal consequences--the physical and personal consequences are lifelong, so I'd argue for no statute of limitations for civil and criminal consequences for the "doctors".

But the curriculum really needs to also include at least 3 things that tend to get overlooked in our reaction to these cultural trends.

1. Gender and bological sex are not the same thing (e.g. in OT times, ‘dressing like a man’ (Deut 22.5) meant wearing a long flowing robe. This is gender.

I’m interested in why you think that gender and sex are “not the same thing.” Especially if you think Scripture makes such a distinction.

I think Scripture uses sex-gender terms (male, female, man, woman, etc). And then they are used regardless of whether we today might classify the context as gender or sex.

Dan Miller wrote: I’m interested in why you think that gender and sex are “not the same thing.” Especially if you think Scripture makes such a distinction.

I already made this clear, I thought.

Individuals express gender in a cultural setting. If you watch The Chosen, all the guys are in robes. In most of western culture, since 19th century or so (maybe 18th), men wear britches. For a long time, women did not.

But what you put on doesn’t change what’s in your 23rd pair of chromosomes.

Along with the obvious example of clothing, you have hair and makeup, posture, customary roles, and so forth that all form a culture’s concept of gender.

You see the distinction in 1 Cor 11, for example. Regardless of how one interprets the controversial parts, it’s clear that men and women were expected to look and behave differently in certain ways. But the Apostle has to directly instruct them to behave differently because behavior is distinct from your sex (it ought to correlate, but it is not the same thing).

In short, passages like the one in Deuteronomy I quoted earlier—and this one here in 1 Cor—do not make any sense if sex and gender are the same thing.

⁶ For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. ⁷ For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. ⁸ For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. ⁹ Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. ¹⁰ That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. ¹¹ Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; ¹² for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. ¹³ Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? ¹⁴ Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, (1 Co 11:6–14)

Further, isn’t social conservatives’ chief complaint about the transgender movement that people are trying to dress and use pronouns that don’t match their sex? This also makes no sense if the clothing and pronouns are the same thing as sex.

So we have a bit of a language problem in this debate—as with so many others. “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.” But even if I’m wrong on the history, this is certainly what is generally meant by the term in English in this century.

Conservatives need to figure out how to clearly communicate “ought” and “is.” The latter is sex. The former is in the realm of gender.

This distinction between “is” and “ought” underlies all of the passages of Scripture where responsibilities and proper conduct are distinct for men vs. women.

Aaron Blumer wrote:

So we have a bit of a language problem in this debate—as with so many others. “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."

You used the phrase "our sexual identity" in your definition, but I think a trans person would say that our biological parts (the sexual part of the phrase) may be different from one's "identity." The trans person would say, "My body parts are female and my parents have raised me entirely with cultural expressions of dresses and long hair and make-up, but those cultural expressions (and my body itself) have felt "wrong" to me because my brain is telling me that my "identity" is male in spite of my body parts and my cultural expressions.

So gender wouldn't be "the things we do" but would be "my identity in my brain."

Aaron,

I'm not sure I necessarily agree with your distinction between biological sex and gender. The Bible certainly tells us how biological sex should be demonstrated, but that is not the same thing as gender (at least Scripturally).

Gender has always been tied to (synonymous?) biological sex until recently.

To your point, there has always been an acceptable range of how biological sex / gender is expressed. That range certainly has a cultural component to it, but Scripture's admonitions regarding modesty and distinction need to be held.

We can define a modern word like "gender" any way we want.

Your "identity," meaning how you see yourself, which equals your "identity in your brain."

I think when Aaron says, "what you do," he means "self-identification." Because someone "identifies" as [opposite sex], they dress that way, request those pronouns, etc.

Scripture, on the other hand, says, "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,"(1Cor11:14). And "5 “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God,"(D22:5)

In Scripture, when a man does woman-ish things...

...It is a "man" wearing what pertains to a "woman." It is not "a woman-gender, man-sex wearing women's clothes." No - he is labeled as a man because that's what he is.

...Nothing is said about "gender" or "sex." Those words aren't used for the title of the category of which "male" and "female" are members.

----

I think at the most, you could read between the lines and say that the Scripture understands that there are men who wish they were women. So they dress like them, which is forbidden. The inner desire to dress as a woman is probably still there, even if the man obeys and doesn't cross-dress. That's called temptation.

But no, the Scripture doesn't have a gender category that is distinct from the sex category.

Dan Miller wrote:

I think when Aaron says, “what you do,” he means “self-identification.” Because someone “identifies” as [opposite sex], they dress that way, request those pronouns, etc.

Scripture, on the other hand, says, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,”(

Maybe I only meant what I said?

(And I quoted those very passages and explained why they necessitate the distinction I’m making. I’ll take another stab at it in a bit.)

Everybody self identifies in many ways about many things. They do it accurately or they do it inaccurately—sometimes totally, sometimes in varying degrees.

It’s always better to do it accurately—sometimes for merely practical reasons, sometimes for moral reasons.

When it comes to sex and gender, because they’re so integral to marriage and family life, the stakes are a lot higher than for, say, the guy who thinks he’s a great singer but can barely carry a tune, or the guy who thinks he’s a great shot but can’t hit the broadside of a barn from the inside, or the guy who thinks he’s in his prime but is way out of shape.

What one believes about oneself and what one really is are distinct things. They ought to correlate. It is quite possible for to not correlate. Even when do they match, they are distinct.

Isn’t that pretty much obvious?

This remains true…

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.” But even if I’m wrong on the history, this is certainly what is generally meant by the term in English in this century.

Conservatives need to figure out how to clearly communicate “ought” and “is.” The latter is sex. The former is in the realm of gender.

This distinction between “is” and “ought” underlies all of the passages of Scripture where responsibilities and proper conduct are distinct for men vs. women.

I want to emphasize that last sentence. It makes no sense for the Apostle to say “men, do this; women, do that” unless it is possible (though wrong) for them to do otherwise. When they do otherwise, they are behaving in a way that is not consistent with God’s design for their sex. What is the word for behaving in a sex-meaningful way (either obediently or disobediently)? The word is certainly not “sex.” It is distinct from it. It is not your condition. It is your conduct. It may be inward conduct (e.g., belief) or outward conduct, or both, but it is conduct.

If you don’t want to use the word “gender” for that, fine, but be aware that English speaking people will increasingly not understand what you’re saying. And you’ll need some other word for it…. or you’ll have to use lengthy phrases all the time, which is also going to make communication difficult.

(As for ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ not being in the Bible, neither is ‘Trinity.’ These are terms for things the Bible makes logically necessary.)

Aaron Blumer wrote: I want to emphasize that last sentence. It makes no sense for the Apostle to say “men, do this; women, do that” unless it is possible (though wrong) for them to do otherwise. When they do otherwise, they are behaving in a way that is not consistent with God’s design for their sex. What is the word for behaving in a sex-meaningful way (either obediently or disobediently)? The word is certainly not “sex.” It is distinct from it. It is not your condition. It is your conduct. It may be inward conduct (e.g., belief) or outward conduct, or both, but it is conduct.

My point from earlier is that a trans person would see gender as distinct from "behaving" and distinct from some sort of chosen belief or chosen outward conduct. They would see their gender as a biological condition of their brain. If a person was born with no sexual organs, do you believe that their perception of themselves as male or female in their brain would be something that could go either way depending on what they simply choose as their inward and outward "conduct?" Is everyone's perception of themselves as male or female something that is simply chosen as an inward conduct?

Kevin Miller wrote: My point from earlier is that a trans person would see gender as distinct from “behaving” and distinct from some sort of chosen belief or chosen outward conduct. They would see their gender as a biological condition of their brain.

There is kind of third thing here that I hadn’t really intended to go into, but harking back to the OP, if a biblical curriculum for younger generations was to be made it would also need to go into the “mind body problem” a bit. That is, it would need to acknowledge that there is a lot that Scripture does not reveal about how the brain and the mind relate to each other—and, as a result, a lot we don’t know about ways a brain can be or cannot be broken.

When we look at Scripture in this area, the focus is very much on what we believe and do. So I think we would do well to focus on that in teaching present and upcoming generations—and also in the various ways we confront/resist our culture.

My insistence that there is a difference between “what we believe about a thing/do about a thing” vs. “the thing itself” (the “thing” in this case being biological sex) is driven by several concerns:

1. Our teaching on this needs to not be self-contradictory. It needs to cohere.
2. Young people are especially not going to overlook it if one moment we’re insisting gender and sex are the same thing and then the next minute we’re faulting people for doing gender in ways that don’t match their biological sex.
3. Debates go so much better when we correctly identify the points of agreement and disagreement. One of the reasons we’re losing the culture war is that we keep putting large chunks of rhetorical energy into rejecting points we actually agree on—and neglecting the points that really define the Christian way (usually also the traditional way) vs. various anti-Christian and anti-traditional ways.
4. On the topic of gender, most of the views involved don’t really disagree that it’s possible to hold to beliefs and behavior about one’s sex that don’t match biology. The real points of disagreement have to do with whether that kind of discontinuity is morally right, healthy for human individuals, and good for society.
5. A curriculum aimed at youth should use language they’re most likely to understand. It could probably manage to be clear using phrases like “beliefs and behavior about one’s sex” instead of the word “gender.” But if it were to go that route, it should probably avoid the term “gender” entirely—to avoid confusing apparent (or actual) contradictions. You could put a disclaimer at the beginning and say, “in this textbook, we use the term ‘gender’ as synonymous with biological sex,” but that would be easily overlooked—as well as being really hard to sustain through an entire curriculum without stumbling into contradiction.
6. There is nothing sacred about the word “gender.” I’ve shown that we need a term for talking about “the things we believe and do regarding our sex, much of which involves culture.” Someone has already pointed out that ‘gender’ is not a Bible word. That means we don’t have a biblical mandate to defend an old definition of the word. We might as well work with the new one. It would improve the debate immensely (see #3 above)

Aaron, I think the reason that you are getting some pushback is that your reasoning (or the way you express your reasoning) isn't clear. I certainly am having a hard time grasping what you are saying.

The 11th edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary gives this definition of gender:

1 a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (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 showing membership in such a subclass

2 a : SEX 〈black divinities of the feminine gender —Charles Dickens〉

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

Inc Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1996).

Granted, that is in 1996, and things have changed.

So definition 1 basically has to do with language, definition 2 has to do with biology and behaviour/culture etc

The confusion seems to be in the term itself, so you can't fault people for saying sex = gender when in common usage it has done so for a long time.

It is true that gender ALSO refers to behaviour and culture, which is where confusion enters the discussion.

I think it isn't helpful to try to distinguish the two as "sex" is one thing and "gender" is another.

Aaron, you noted that we used the same Scriptures and read them differently.

I think there’s an underlying disagreement, and then we’re begging the question (maybe both of us) when we ask what the Scriptures say.

In the case of a trans person, is the non-biological male/female self-description true in any sense?

Me - no.

Aaron - yes, because their “gender” doesn’t necessarily match their sex.

Then we come to Deut 22:5 “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, … abomination …" and ask what the Scripture says?

Me - the Scripture considers her a woman and doesn’t label her as “male” in any sense, regardless of her attire.

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.

Sex and gender are the same thing. Etymology of the word confirms this.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court confirmed this in Bostock v. Clayton County.

I'm curious as to the imperative to accept culturally woke definitions. Should Christians also accept redefinition of other words like "marriage" to ensure we remain relevant?

It might be fair to say that the things we find hardest to explain are the things that are most obvious and simple to us.

I’ll probably find a better way to say it eventually.

Don’s post above is helpful. I researched dictionaries before I posted my first comment in this thread and found that quite a few put the things we think and do that are associated with our biological sex as definition 1, not down the list.

But is this unclear?

1. Biological sex is a thing
2. The things we believe and do that have sexual meaning are another thing
3. They ought to align
4. It is possible for them not to align. (In the case of the Deut. passage, a man could actually put on a woman’s garment.)

So these should be four points that are crystal clear. For social conservatives, they would also not be controversial, I would think. (Even to social ‘progressives,’ only #3 would be controversial.)

Now several more points that I hope I can make equally clear, but I recognize are somewhat controversial.

5. We need a word for “the things we believe and do that have sexual meaning.” The word “sex” will not do.
6. The trend in English is to use the word “gender” for this.
7. If we insist on sticking with the old definition of “gender” we’re likely to be increasingly confusing in our efforts to communicate Christian sexual ethics to present and future generations
8. We often aren’t consistent in our insistence on using “gender” as synonymous with “biological sex”—partly because of #5. As a result, we say self-contradictory things.
9. It’s not good to be saying self-contradictory things.
10. Advocates of Christian/traditional sexual ethics shouldn’t be trying to fight for the word “gender” because we don’t actually disagree on point #2 and there is no biblical reason to fight for the word either.

Dan Miller wrote:

In the case of a trans person, is the non-biological male/female self-description true in any sense?

Me - no.

Aaron - yes, because their “gender” doesn’t necessarily match their sex.

Then we come to

Deut 22:5 “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, … abomination …” and ask what the Scripture says?

Me - the Scripture considers her a woman and doesn’t label her as “male” in any sense, regardless of her attire.

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.

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

So, maybe it helps to summarize this way: Granting that “gender” and “sex” are distinct things is not a claim that it’s OK for them be contradictory or that, when they’re contradictory, either of them are true.

Edit to add… about ‘woke’ definitions

First, I don’t look at ideas and ask if they’re woke or not woke. I don’t think in those categories. What I ask is it right, is it true is it good, is it effective?

Second, changing definitions is the default for all languages. Words change meaning over time. Sometimes there is benefit in rejecting a trendy new definition. Sometimes there isn’t. It’s not bad just because it’s different—nor is it bad just because the change originated in sources we disagree with about some (or even most) things.

Of course that's true.

The problem is that we are in the midst of change. Your point 6 above, "The trend in English is to use the word “gender” for this." isn't universal.

The confusion is already a part of the debate. I think it is a mistake to cede this point to the woke mob.

Gender isn't exactly the same thing as biological sex, but it really can't be divorced from it and for language to remain coherent.

While we may need more words to describe "the things we believe and do that have sexual meaning" it really doesn't contribute light to the discussion to turn words into nonsense by using shorthand that most people haven't accepted.