Only Two Human Creations
Our God made only two human creations, male and female—or, if you prefer, “Adam Eve.” Any other “human creation,” such as a “transgender,” is a production and fabrication of man’s wisdom and springs from an evil concept of humanity.
From the animal domain, a bull is a bull (male), a cow is a cow (female), a horse is a horse (male), a mare is a mare (female) a hog is a hog (male), and a sow is a sow (female). There are no “trans” among them. Sadly, some human specimens act and sound like bulls and hogs and donkeys, and may be “trans-animals,” but highly unlikely.
Is there a question to be answered and discussed? This is, after all, the Bible Questions and Study board.
Any other “human creation,” such as a “transgender,” is a production and fabrication of man’s wisdom and springs from an evil concept of humanity.
Can we say, more fundamentally, any alternative if a product of
sin? There is no "
man's wisdom" or "
evil concept" apart from sin.
From the animal domain, a bull is a bull (male), a cow is a cow (female), a horse is a horse (male), a mare is a mare (female) a hog is a hog (male), and a sow is a sow (female). There are no “trans” among them. Sadly, some human specimens act and sound like bulls and hogs and donkeys, and may be “trans-animals,” but highly unlikely.
This is incorrect. Many animal species have males who act feminine (and vice versa) for a variety of reasons.
Do not conflate sex with gender. That conflation is where contemporary "gender theory" mucks things up. Gender is not a biological term. It is not a medical term, either.
Correctly understood, gender is the spectrum of behaviors displayed within what is considered culturally normal among males and females. Gender is the spectrum of behaviors considered "
masculine" and "
feminine," as associated with the biological sex of the individual. "
Macho" or "
machismo" is a masculine behavior. So to, for examples, are caballerismo, stoicism, patriarchy, and many more points along the masculine spectrum. There are feminine males and men but effeminate males is considered aberrant, outside the norm, outside the spectrum of what is considered statistically and culturally normative. The same kind of distinctions exist among females and the feminine side of the gender spectrum. There are tomboys, princesses, and the butch (for a few examples). All males have penises, but not all males act alike.
Sex is binary. Gender is not.
Gender is a standardized bell curve. That fact is critically important to understanding gender correctly AND understand the aberrant abhorrence of modern gender theory. There's nothing scientific or rational about it. In a standard bell curve about 95% of all people fall within the first two standard deviations. The mean, mode, and median all foll on a single point in the middle of the curve and everything else falls on one side of that line or the other. With gender that 95-96% is what is considered normal
both statistically and normatively. Less than 4% is outside of that middle section. That outlying portion is called
deviance.
Less than one percent falls outside the third standard deviation. That is the portion in which "transgender" people fall.
Politically, what is happening is a large portion of people are attempting to make an extreme minority of people representative of the whole. It is both scientifically and politically irrational. In a representative republic like the US, it is incumbent that the majority rule,
but that rule requires the majority to respect, protect, and enforce the rights of the minority. It does not matter what that minority might be. Even criminals have rights, so no appeal can be made to the "law," or what is morally correct when it comes to denying the legal/political/behavioral rights of others. The problem is that the gender minority seeks to reverse the laws and what is reasonable and rational. Normally this is called mental illness, delusion or, more colloquially, insane (which is not a clinical term). This is why the minority populations (plural) among the sexually deviant try to combine their numbers. LGBTQIA++
(or whatever it may currently be called) is still less than 3% of the population when combined but in a population of 330 million people that number is nearly ten million. If transgendered people are counted separately that number is less than 1% of the populace but that's still more than 2 million people. Two million people can make a lot of noise.
Scripturally speaking, sexual deviance is restricted and regulated by the Law of God, but the Law of God is simply one expression of the laws of God AND the Law of God made allowance for the existence of sexual deviance even while forbidding it. Most people do not realize this because they don't think through the minutia of God's Law. Take, for example, the laws of the Law that prohibited a man/male from having sex with another man/male (or those pertaining to women/females). What we call homosexuality was considered a capital crime by God. Anyone caught having homosexual or same-sex sex was to be killed, killed by stoning. However, no capital crime could be punished without the eyewitness testimony of two or more people. This begs an important question: Just how often were men having sex where two or more people would/could observe them?
In other words, all that same-sex sex that happened inside someone's tent or house hidden from others' eyes was never prosecuted because it remained unknown by the people in that community. God certainly knew it was happening. God,
knowing the behavior was happening saw fit to let most of it go unaddressed. What He did demand eradication of was when that behavior became publicly visible
. In other words, God prohibition and God's means of enforcing that prohibition varied, with the latter allowing for the behavior's existence.
As far as the earlier mentioned "spectrum" of masculine behaviors we can consider what we know about the men in the Bible. Moses, Elijah, Jonah, and Hosea are all different in their expression of their masculinity. So too are the apostles John, James
(one of the sons of thunder, not the brother of Jesus), and Paul. Where John is circumspect and loving, James is very aggressive, while Paul is intellectual. We do not know much in the way of specifics regarding these men's personalities, but we do know all of them are males while each of them displays their masculinity differently. Furthermore, long before psychology developed the construct of "archetypes," humanity understood masculinity along these lines. While there are many archetypes, the main four, the four with which most people are familiar are the king, the warrior, the priest, and the friend (sometimes called the lover). Not all men are kings. Not all men are warriors. Sadly, most teachings on men, on what constitutes maleness, or manliness, or manhood in the Church focus on the warrior role and ethic. Some teaching will talk about king, warrior, and friend but most leave out the role of priest. Others include the priest but leave out the friend, etc. Simply put, 1) Jesus is the epitome and he fully inhabits and exemplifies all four archetypes and 2) any male reading this post can and should inhabit some aspect of all four archetypes
as God has created him. The same applies to women. Not every woman is a Martha any more than every woman is a Mary and, statistically speaking, few women are Deborahs or Priscillas.
God made humans in God's image and in that image, God made humans male and female. As every father who has raised a son knows, being male does not make anyone a man. Masculinity is not the same thing as maleness.
And if the Church cannot get it correct then how in the world
(pun intended) should we expect to exemplify that to sinners?
Now I hate to further skew and burden the conversation but the blunt, distasteful fact of human existence in a sinful world is that sin, in the form of abuse, has corrupted nearly everyone's understanding of what we might ever consider Godly masculinity and femininity. Remember: Jesus never married. He awaits his bride. There is, therefore, an incomplete picture even when we look at Jesus. On the surface, for most of us, conversation about biblical sex and gender occurs within the so called "healthy middle," but few are the people completely unaffected by some form of sexual abuse either in their own lives or the lives of those who've raised them and a lot of that abuse occurred in the Church at the hands of congregants. I do not mean to be disgusting nor offensive (so the mods may delete the next sentence if deemed to violate the tos) but if you've ever sat with an adult male who was sodomized multiple times beginning at the age of 8 or 9 by family and clergy, or sat with an adult female who was taught dad's penis was a toy to be played with as they bathed together and her body was a toy for dad (and later other men and/or women) to play with then you know how severely and pervasively sin affects us all, directly or indirectly. This can be summarized in a few words.....
The
exploitation of gender theory is insidious.
Correctly understood and properly applied the social science construct is valid but in the hands of political ideologues it is very dark and sinister. Sin does not come wearing a neon sign announcing itself. It corrupts every aspect of human existence and does so without asking anyone's permission.
Lastly, I wrote that extemporaneously, so I reserve the right to edit it and correct it as any discussion thereof warrants. I might have made a mistake or three with the wording, but the basic concepts are correct.
