Why do some Christians oppose gender transition?

While growing up, I don’t think anyone ever told me that being transgender was unacceptable, but I nonetheless received this message loud and clear.

Over the years, I began to question the validity of this idea, but I didn’t dig deeply into it until last year. As you can see from my recent posts, I found the arguments to be less than compelling.

This presents something of a mystery: many Christians express strong anti-trans sentiment, but the stated reasons for this opposition don’t seem to match up with its intensity.

So what’s going on here?

It can be difficult to find a clear answer for this, as there is a trend within Christian publishing of not even mentioning these arguments when discussing sexual minorities¹.

For example, take Messy Grace², which stands firmly within the tradition of Welcoming but Not Affirming. Both books advocate practicing kindness towards sexual minorities—while still maintaining disapproval of their “lifestyles”.

Of the two books, Messy Grace was published much more recently and displays awareness of a broader spectrum of sexual minorities, using the acronym “LGBT” 141 times. But how often does the author say something specifically about trans folks? Three times. The first two are mere bullet points in a list of discussion questions:

• What would the reaction be if a member had a sex change³ and still attended your church?
• If a man who had a sex change to be a woman started attending your church, could that person attend your women’s ministry?

The last doesn’t occur until the end notes:

I understand that in recent times the acronym has been updated to LGBTQ or LGBTQIA, but for the sake of those I am referring to in this book, I have chosen to use LGBT since I am mainly talking about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered³ people.

While the author attempts to leave room for the idea of Christians who are fully affirming of sexual minorities, he still devotes a chapter to expressing his interpretation of what the Bible seems to say about the topic. However, in this chapter, he only speaks to issues of sexual orientation, displaying little or no understanding of how it differs from gender identity.

This approach is common. Because ‘T’ is included in the “LGBTQ” acronym, many authors behave as if there is no distinction between sexual orientation and gender identity. (Even books that take an affirming position rarely give much attention to this.)

But what of books that do show such an awareness?

Affirming God’s Image: Addressing the Transgender Question with Science and Scripture provides a picture of what is common in this space, and a deep analysis may provide some clues as to what drives the opposition.

This book can be roughly divided into four parts:

• Background on transgender history and vocabulary (Introduction through Chapter 2)
• A scriptural analysis (Chapter 3)
• Medical analyses (Chapters 4–7)
• Guidance for Christian responses (Chapters 8–9)

Early in the first chapter, the author presents a graphic description of the ritual castration of first century Cybele cultists. While acknowledging that this phenomenon is different from what modern transgender folks experience, he speculates:

If we could travel back in time to early Christians in Rome in AD 64 and describe modern transgenderism⁴ to them, they probably would have said, “We don’t have the word ‘transgenderism,’ but we think we have seen something very similar to what you are describing.”

This seems to be representative of the author’s overall strategy throughout the first part of the book. He presents several sensationalized examples of individual transgender people and sexologists, then derives generalizations from these extreme cases.⁵

In the second part, the author predictably starts with an appeal to Genesis 1, which I have covered previously. He also includes a brief digression about intersex conditions, which he refers to as “Disorders of Sexual Development”. Rather than seeing these as a natural consequence of the diversity of creation, the author casts them as a result of humanity’s fall.

First, DSDs can be objectively diagnosed, and the causes of most such occurrences are known, often traceable to clearly known genetic problems. In contrast, no one knows what causes transgenderism, and it cannot be diagnosed in the way DSDs are. Second, a DSD is an objective diagnosis based on clearly defined and observable criteria, while transgenderism is based on a person’s subjective testimony of their psychological experience.

(This is a classic argument from ignorance, and its effects are felt through much of the remainder of the book.)

From here, he goes on to Deuteronomy 22:5 and provides a typical, one-dimensional analysis of it. Again, I’ve covered this passage previously. But then, after a rushed analysis of Matthew 19:1–12, he goes in a curious direction:

He includes a discussion about homosexuality.

Because the author rejects the validity of transgender identities, he defines this as a relationship between a transgender individual and a member of their birth-assigned sex. However, some studies⁶ show that such relationships may be relatively rare, so the topic would seem to have limited relevance.

In a book that is dedicated to a discussion of transgender identities, this whole discussion seems out of place.

The third part of the book is spent shoring up the author’s claim that “no one knows what causes transgenderism”.

Two chapters explore a variety of biological factors that may influence gender identity. (he uses the phrases “causes transgenderism” or “causes gender dysphoria”) The emphasis for each of these factors is to either show that it is unrelated to gender identity or that it has not been conclusively linked to gender identity.

Yet, at the end of each chapter, the author backtracks and admits that there may indeed be biological components that affect gender identity. However, he maintains that even if such a discovery is made, gender transition will still be sinful. This is a curious choice: if biological factors make no difference in the author’s condemnation of gender transition, why discuss them at all, let alone in such detail?

The latter two chapters of the third part focus on gender affirming medical treatments. Interspersed with dry facts and figures are extended discussions of the risks associated with these treatments and their irreversible effects. Given the author’s earlier, unequivocal rejection of gender transition, these chapters seem to make no contribution to the core argument, again raising the question of why they are included.

When it comes to the “Christian” response, the author’s general guidance is to practice “tough love”⁷ towards transgender individuals and family members who experience gender dysphoria.

This part of the book also contains what I see as the most problematic discussion in the entire text. The author acknowledges that “up to a third” of transgender individuals attempt suicide (other studies have shown much higher incidences) and seems to be aware of the evidence that support (particularly gender affirmation) from parents can significantly reduce this risk.⁸

Reflecting on the danger to children who are unsupported by Christian parents, the author ultimately concludes:

The brutal truth is that sometimes suicide is manipulative and intended to harm others.

Clearly, the author is aware that he is recommending a dangerous path. He provides no way to minimize the danger but instead shifts the blame and attempts to prepare parents for the deaths of their children.

I hope that I am not alone in asking what is wrong with this person?

The author’s level of antipathy towards people like me is so great that he is even unmoved by our deaths—not only that, but he even goes so far as to encourage parents to steel themselves for such an eventuality.

This trajectory is chilling, and it cannot be disguised by the author’s protestations that he values life. If one were to construct an outline of this book without reference to gender identity, it would look like a recipe for inciting genocide:

• emphasize the differences and alienness of the target group
• use “scripture” to show their depravity
• use “science” to show their inferiority
• begin presenting their misfortune as either inconsequential or deserved

While many of the author’s instructions are carefully couched in terms of “love”, the drift towards oppression is unmistakable—and many calls for oppression begin with claims that it is for the good of the oppressed.

How did we get here?

The arguments against gender transition are not good. The scriptural approach is flimsy, and the medical approach fails to recommend any alternatives that result in better health outcomes for those of us whose gender identities do not match our birth-assigned sex.

Given these weaknesses, it seems pretty clear that this opposition to transgender people is more ideological than scriptural. But why?

I can only find one possible explanation:

Consider: authors that claim to talk about the LGBTQ community rarely mention us, and authors that do talk about us invariably include some reference to sexual orientation. What’s driving this?

For a person who wants to maintain their condemnation of gay people, the existence of transgender people is problematic. Consider this all-too-common scenario:

A transgender person grows up in a non-affirming church and remains closeted until adulthood. Along the way, they get married in what appears to others as a heterosexual relationship.

At some point, this individual reveals their identity to the world. This creates some difficult questions for anyone who might want to accept their transgender neighbor while remaining anti-gay:

• Is this person now in a gay relationship? (that’s not ok!)
  • Wait, were they always in a gay relationship?
• Should they get a divorce? (but Jesus had some pretty harsh things to say about divorce…)
• Come to think of it, I don’t believe in gay marriage, so should I just say that the couple was never married in the first place? (but that creates even more uncomfortable questions…)
• Maybe I could say that it isn’t gay because they were assigned [gender] at birth? (But what does that mean for someone who transitions early?)

At this point, it seems that the only way to keep the anti-gay position from unraveling is to reject any hint of validity for transgender identities. To do otherwise calls into question the very definition of the term “homosexual behavior”.

Looking at the argument in this light goes a long way towards explaining the odd twists and turns of Affirming God’s Image and other works of its ilk. The author is willing to entertain any avenue for the dismissal of transgender identities because this conclusion is predetermined. Idea after idea is flung against the wall to see what sticks, and something has to stick because otherwise, we might find ourselves needing to re-evaluate other beliefs.

This idea is unsettling to many Christians, particularly those whose identities are caught up in the “culture wars” narrative. The dissonance is so great that many would rather watch us literally die than to reconsider their position.

All to protect a definition.