This reflection might be triggering for some as it deals with LGBTQ and social justice, specifically transgender people and the recent ban in the United States on their participation in gendered sports. Feel free to skip this one, but only if you can both love your neighbour and disagree with them. Otherwise, challenge youself a bit.
The best lies contain a kernel of truth to anchor them. The liar can then move about that anchor point with abandon, spinning whatever “truth” they like, and people will believe it because it is anchored on something legitimately, verifiably true.
Transgender people often face justice issues in Western society. This is a simple truth. We have come to believe, with the same dogmatic vigor as other teachings of the church, love is good, murder is bad, Jesus is saviour… there are only two genders. A kernel of truth is that for the majority of people are both heterosexual and cisgender, that is to say either male and attracted to women or female and attracted to men. It is understandable that, over thousands of years, our society would organize around that relatively safe assumption in what gets called heteronormativity. I haven’t seen recent numbers, but studies from a few years ago suggested that 5-10% of people identify as non-heteronormative. Others are non-heteronormative but are either in hiding because of social pressure to conform or are close enough to fit to the norm. This study suggests that projecting for the hidden part might be as high as 20%, but that means 80% of people are definitely heteronormative. I would call that a significant majority. That said, even if statistics were a compelling way to sway opinion, it doesn’t really help the transgender people who are facing justice issues today.
We’ll start by first understanding some of the ways people might be trans. The term has two slightly definitions from sociological and medical points of view. The uncomfortable truth for people who hold to the dogma of two genders is there have always been more than two. That some people are born intersex, with both male and female sexual organs, is proof enough of that. Such people are both male and female by any definition a society might create. It stands to reason then that some people are born with less obvious versions of that truth. A genetic instance is where instead of the typical (again, 80%) XX or XY, a person might be born with XXY or XYY. This happens because X and Y chromosomes are not the same length and are prone to “copy errors” in sperm. Another instance is chimerism where two eggs are fertilized but combine while they are still in the “cyst” stage and none of the cells have differentiated. Such a person would literally be part male and part female. The final example for this reflection is androgen levels. Androgens are the hormones that reinforce gender traits, like facial hair. For example, there are different levels of facial hair among men in general. If someone’s hormone levels don’t match the gender the rest of their body is leaning toward, they might need hormone replacement therapy, even if it’s to reinforce dogmatic gender assumptions.
The above examples are all medical in nature and would need some kind of medical response, starting with counselling and moving toward other interventions as necessary. It is important to remember that while as much as 20% of people are non-heteronormative, only a percentage of them would need this kind of intervention. Many of the people who identify as trans do so because they feel they do not fit inside gender norms. This might include women who hate housework and men who change diapers. Western society has spent the better part of 200 years redefining what it means to be a women but has done little work on what it means to be a man in light of those changes. It’s little wonder then that gender dysphoria is present among more than those who are “medically trans”.
And now to the issue that inspired this reflection. The kernel of truth that anchors this issue is this: society separated competitive sports by gender for reasons that make sense. If the Olympics were to make the women compete with the men, the men would win, every time. We have the historical data to prove it, go ahead and look it up. The only notable exceptions are gymnastics and figure skating where dexterity and flexibility are key, and even style can make a difference. If we separated competitors by gender on the grounds of advantage caused by relative hormone levels, to allow a small group of people to bypass that wouldn’t make sense. This is true with trans women who had the advantage of years of testosterone to build muscle before their transition. This is also true with trans men who are on hormone therapy to achieve male hormone levels in a way that’s disqualifying for a man.
HOWEVER, that’s not what politicians are talking about. They start there, anchor with the truth of why we split competitive sports by gender and move immediately into locker room issues of girls seeing a penis or boys seeing a vagina. That some people are going to squirm reading that sentence is the real problem. People imagine a big room with a bunch of naked people and immediately get uncomfortable because they wouldn’t want to be there. All of which are issues best resolved by sports leagues and facilities with change rooms and showers, not by government edict. Some leagues are less competitive than others and wouldn’t mind if a trans person joins in. Some leagues already include both men and women because it’s about providing some structure for the game. The Olympics is going to have to make their own rules anyway because Canada may well follow the American lead, for the sake of consistency if nothing else, but other countries may decide differently.
So, there are three problems with the current conversation about transgender in sports. First, politicians are failing to address any of the real issues of trans people in sports. Second, by moving immediately from biological competitive advantage to showering together in the locker room, they sexualize and then demonize an entire group of people by their genetics or relative androgen levels. Third, politicians use the kernel of the first issue to create the second issue so as to distract justice minded people while they accomplish their real goal of the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor. It’s called “flooding the zone” and is an old tactic in warfare that involves sending in an army so large that, even though many will die, the enemy simply cannot defend against the amount of people. This is why Trump is doing all of this by executive order. Even if it’s illegal, it takes someone suing the government to have a judge revoke it, and an appeal keeps people busy enough, and the people afraid of the locker room afraid enough, that his incremental goals will succeed… and Canada will end up following suit, for the sake of consistency if nothing else.
The question that remains for me, and hopefully for you, is how do we follow the example of Christ in this moment? The above discussion has been intentionally devoid of scriptural reference because I believe in the separation of church and state. While my religion informs my ethics, “because the Bible says so” is a poor basis for a law, especially given how Christians rarely agree on how to interpret scripture on such things. To say, “it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” is deeply unhelpful given it comes from Genesis chapter 2, and chapter 1 is a completely different creation story that cannot be literally true if Adam and Eve is literally true… they cannot co-exist because that’s not what they are about. Gen 1 is about our essential goodness. Gen 2-3 is about our essential fallenness. We are good but we are imperfect. And so I point to Acts 8:26-40, where Phillip speaks to the Ethiopian official, who is a eunuch. A eunuch is not the same as trans and was really a third gender, not quite man but not quite woman. That passage is worthy of a full reflection, but the punchline is this: when the Ethiopian says, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”, Philip replies by baptizing him. Remember Philip when, as an act of Christian faith, you reject a person for the sin of making you uncomfortable just by existing.