Print
Adventism and the Intersex Problem
The Adventist church, like many conservative Christian denominations, takes an official position condemning homosexuality. The 1999 General Conference Annual Council approved a position statement, found on the church’s website at http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main-stat46.html that states:
The Seventh-day Adventist Church recognizes that every human being is valuable in the sight of God, and we seek to minister to all men and women in the spirit of Jesus. We also believe that by God's grace and through the encouragement of the community of faith, an individual may live in harmony with the principles of God's Word.
Seventh-day Adventists believe that sexual intimacy belongs only within the marital relationship of a man and a woman. This was the design established by God at creation. The Scriptures declare: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24, NIV). Throughout Scripture this heterosexual pattern is affirmed. The Bible makes no accommodation for homosexual activity or relationships. Sexual acts outside the circle of a heterosexual marriage are forbidden (Lev. 20:7-21; Rom. 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). Jesus Christ reaffirmed the divine creation intent: "'Haven't you read,' he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?" So they are no longer two, but one'" (Matt. 19:4-6, NIV). For these reasons Adventists are opposed to homosexual practices and relationships.
Seventh-day Adventists endeavor to follow the instruction and example of Jesus. He affirmed the dignity of all human beings and reached out compassionately to persons and families suffering the consequences of sin. He offered caring ministry and words of solace to struggling people, while differentiating His love for sinners from His clear teaching about sinful practices.
First a few, hopefully uncontroversial, observations:
1. The concept of homosexuality is contingent. That is, it depends on a definition of gender. The document states intimacy should be confined to a marital relationship between a man and a woman, with homosexuality forbidden because it falls outside the approved group.
2. The position statement assumes that gender separates into two well-defined categories: men and women. There is no suggestion in the document – or the Bible – that humanity might not always be unambiguously divisible into these two categories.
3. The position statement assumes homosexuality is undifferentiated. There is nothing there to suggest subcategories within homosexuality, which of course might open the door to the possibility that only certain types of homosexuality should be condemned. Note that this is a simplification and is not mandatory. Consider the word cholesterol. We often use it in an undifferentiated way. And there would be no reason to add complication unless the unqualified use proved inadequate, as in recent times has been the case. We now often differentiate between LDL and HDL cholesterols, as LDL cholesterol is associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease while HDL cholesterol can help prevent atherosclerosis. Note however that the Adventist undifferentiating of homosexuality is just following the Biblical lead, where the term is also undifferentiated. But this does not conclusively demonstrate that the concept is inherently monolithic.
4. The position statement is intended to be categorical - an unqualified definition of what constitutes homosexuality.
5. The position statement is propositional in nature. That is, it is expressed in language that allows for deterministic verification of its truth or falsity. You could almost express it mathematically. Something like: humanity (H) is the sum of the sets male (M) and female (F). Intercourse (I) is sex between two members of humanity. Marriage (MA) is the union of one M and one F. Then for all H, any I outside of MA constitutes sin.
Please note that nothing in what I have said, above, infers that the Adventist position with respect to homosexuality is incorrect. That is, my observations are simply intended to call attention to characteristics of the position statement, not to make any sort of value judgment about its truth or falsity.
Now, let’s look more closely at the topic of intersex.
The term suggests that gender does not always neatly divide between men and women. Intersex is a word (sometimes less accurately called hermaphrodite or androgyny) used to define people born with somewhat ambiguous genital and/or chromosomal composition. The Intersex Society of North America (http://www.isna.org) states:
“Intersex” is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male. For example, a person might be born appearing to be female on the outside, but having mostly male-typical anatomy on the inside. Or a person may be born with genitals that seem to be in-between the usual male and female types—for example, a girl may be born with a noticeably large clitoris, or lacking a vaginal opening, or a boy may be born with a notably small penis, or with a scrotum that is divided so that it has formed more like labia. Or a person may be born with mosaic genetics, so that some of her cells have XX chromosomes and some of them have XY. [http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex]
Sonature doesn’t decide where the category of “male” ends and the category of “intersex” begins, or where the category of “intersex” ends and the category of “female” begins. Humans decide. Humans (today, typically doctors) decide how small a penis has to be, or how unusual a combination of parts has to be, before it counts as intersex. Humans decide whether a person with XXY chromosomes or XY chromosomes and androgen insensitivity will count as intersex. [http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex]
If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. But a lot more people than that are born with subtler forms of sex anatomy variations, some of which won’t show up until later in life. [http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency]
There are at least three dozen well-documented variations in humans that result in something called “intersex,” or non-standard male and female anatomy. Though the mythical hermaphrodite—fully male and fully female—is a physiological impossibility, some people with intersex conditions are indeed born with both ovarian and testicular tissue. Some are born with both an apparent penis and an apparent vagina. Some are born looking really female but with XY chromosomes, and some are born looking really male but with XX chromosomes. Some are all male, except for a small or even non-existent penis, and some all female except for a big clitoris. [http://www.isna.org/node/670]
While the boundaries of where intersex begin and end may not be totally clear, it is uncontroversial, medically, that intersex is a genuine condition affecting many people. Consequently the assumption in the Adventist position, above, that gender unambiguously resolves into men and women – is too simplistic. It fails to adequately classify all of humanity. And, more importantly, the Bible has the same limitation.
Some might note that this ‘problem’, practically speaking, is relatively small. And any attempt to amplify and thus clarify the current Adventist position risks diluting the church’s current clear stance on homosexuality. It is also likely true that intersexed people would not be very interested in Adventism, given the somewhat hostile attitude many within the church have toward homosexuality. But, however true the pragmatics might be, they are not relevant. The church’s position is an attempt to clarify what the Bible counts as sin. And Christ died for all, not just those who can be easily gender-categorized.
This inadequacy of gender definition has significant implications. Because the definition of homosexuality is contingent, if gender cannot be adequately divided into male and female only, then the definition of homosexual behavior has a corresponding ambiguity. Consider an intersexed individual who, by anatomical inspection, could not be classified as either female or male. What kinds of sexual activity, if any, should be considered homosexual – and therefore sinful - for them? The position statement is unable to say. Yet the statement seems to be suggesting that it provides a categorical method for determining the sin of homosexuality.
Further, and perhaps even more important, the implication that the Bible’s categorical-type statements do not admit exception is undermined. The Bible seems to categorically divide humanity into only male and female. No exceptions are noted anywhere. It might be plausible then to assume that no exceptions exist. But exceptions in the case of gender do exist. So we cannot take the Bible’s apparent categorical statements on gender at face value. We would have to conclude that the Bible is silent in the cases where gender is indeterminate.
But if we have been mistaken as to the scope of the Bible’s definition of gender why should we remain fully confident that the Bible’s definition of the concept of homosexuality is categorical, and admits no exceptions? In both cases (definitions of gender and homosexuality) the Bible is silent concerning exceptions. But we see that exceptions exist in gender.
Please recognize that the argument I’m expounding here does not conclude that the church’s position on homosexuality is wrong. It does, however, propose that the grounding of the current position statement is insufficient to support its conclusion. That is bad enough. It would seem that the demonstratably weak definition of gender as male + female only is a significant challenge to the adequacy of the church’s rationale for universally condemning homosexually.
User login
Recent
- Joe Erwin Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Anonymouswon Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Carrol Grady Should Seventh-day Adventists be Republicans?
- Sirje Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Fred Eastman The Role of Institutions in Evangelism – A Call to the Adventist Business Community
Newsletter
Organizations
Fri, 08/31/2012 - Sun, 09/02/2012
Job Dybdahl, Sigve Tonstad, Harri Kuhalampi
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Rich,
Unfortunately, your beautiful, eminently rational argument can be easily dismissed by biblical literalists.Their response, equivocating language stripped away, might be something like this:
"God created all creatures male and female. Genesis couldn't be clearer. The existence of homosexual and intersexual creatures is "unnatural", i.e., they are the Devil's work, and are genetically sinful, dangerous, and can never be regarded as fully human. Salvation is reserved for the natural sons and daughters of God. Consequently, allowing these creatures to be part of the Body of Christ is anathema.
"It is claimed that some of these unnatural creatures can be restored to the human condition through fasting and prayer, but these claims should be regarded with suspicion, and on no account should they be allowed to assume positions of authority in the church or associate with children."
Once again we have another example of deprecating the Bibl and substituting our own ideas.
While it is true that sometimes a creature is born with a not easily defined sexual status most if not all of such variants are incapable of reproduction which is natures/gods way of ensuring that such do not contribute to the gene pool.
To argue that such are or are not heirs of salvation through Christ is a waste of effort as none know for sure. What are the salvation chances of the severely handicapped mentally and/or physically.If one takes the position that salvation is based on the knowlegeable and rational acceptance of Jesus Christ as ones personal saviour then those without the capacity to know much less reason would be damned through no fault of their own.
Not an acceptable conclusion if indeed there is a God of love somewhere who sees the sparrow fall and presumably grieves for it.
On the other hand if one can accept that Jesus can and will save the handicapped mentally and physically why would he not save the spiritually handicapped also.
What I find the most objectionable about this article is the effort to raise hypothetical questions and the reason that because a and b are true e and f are also.
@Andrew, I agree with you.
Abe seems to prove Andrew's point. I fail to see how we have another example of the Bible being deprecated, as the Bible did not address the issue of intersex. And there is nothing hypothetical about a person identified as intersex, who needs to wrestle with whether they may be male or female (and all the restrictions that are imposed).
What do we rely upon Abe to determine how a person is classified. Is it external features? Is it chromosones?
And Abe's second paragraph is classically adventist. None know for sure if they are heirs of salvation??? How can one sleep well at night if one has no assurance of salvation? The apostles had more confidence than that.
I have thought about this one a lot.
Then there is androgen insensitivity syndrome etc.
I do not think that the church is ready to deal with this issue. I wouldn't imagine that many pastors or administrators are up to speed on issues like these. Issues like these rarely cross the radar of the church (but you could say this about most denominations); and most people are uncomfortable with the ambiguity here. When dealing with issues like this we tend to rush for a template--and quick: things must revert to normal as soon as possible. You will likely see some of this in the comments. So there is that element in the church (probably in other churches too).
I would like to think, though, that much of the solution to this lies in Matthew 19:12.
""For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.""
This calls for a level of humility that we (me included) often lack (since certainty is a huge things for SDAs--that is another story though).
Who knows...?
Andrew Hanson: "homosexual and intersexual creatures are 'unnatural'...dangerous, and can never be regarded as fully human"
This is how Hitler thought of Jews. And unfortunately this is how Literalists can become dangerous creatures themselves. Their pervasiveness is so great that I actually mis-read your post at first and was shocked, but not surprised, to read something like that, thinking it was your genuine sentiment.
---
1 Corinthians 13:13
Abe, there are people under the intersexed umbrella who are fertile, and are able to have children.
Rich. You use gender and sex interchangably. It is understood by those interested in sex and gender that sex is the physical condition of genes (genotype) or physical sexual characteristics (phenotype). Gender is generally understood to be the identification of a person as belonging to a sex group, whether it matches genotype or phenotype or not. Thus gender includes a person's identification.
Being an intersexed person and identifying as a lesbian I have thought of this issue before. I am genetically male but lack 5alfaReductase due to a genetic variation. 5alfa Reductase is an enzyme needed to convert Testosterone to Di Hydro testosterone DHT, the form of Testosterone that is most biologically active. Without exogenous DHT at puberty genetic males may not develop fully functioning testes, but some do. In my case it was decided since I was reared as a female, they would remove my testes and give me estrogens. I look female for the most part, but I don't identify as a woman, nor as a man either. I am intersexed.
I don't belive that my particular genetic and pheotypic particularities make any difference vis-a-vis the debate about LGBT individuals and the church's view of same gender relationships. Socially I am a lesbian, The experience of other LGBT individuals and their sexual orientation is no less valid than my own, so I resist making my own identity but join proudly with my LGBT sibblings.
______________________________________________________________
Carolyn Parsons
Carlitas
I really feel for you and what you have gone through.
My Uncle went through life till he was middle aged when he finally told everyone that his whole life when people spoke his name, he heard in his head the feminine version, and that he had amassed enough wealth to afford the surgery that would make his self identity match his physical appearance.
And he did.
His daughter dealt with it. His son was forever scared, but other than that, it seems true to his word. By that I mean he doesnt seem interested in intimate relationships with anyone and truely just wanted to achieve what he said presumably for his own state of mind.
I find nothing wrong with that. Even the strictest reading of the bible does not object to that, in fact it says if something is causing you to sin then you should pluck it out.
Some things are just so, "one off", so to speak, there are no real guide books. To many of us in his family who consider active homosexuality wrong, we had no grounds to complain since it never did include that.
For those who were born with ambiguous features or 2 sets, it is especially hard.
In more recent history when this was known at birth, the parents sometimes opted for surgery to save the child from having to go through some tough times only to find out later that the gender that seemed the best medical option was not the gender identify the child later identified with.
If it was somehow possible to identify an intersexed babies gender identity and allow the best medical solution possible, I dont believe even the staunchest red neck would have any basis to complain in a biblical sense.
Carlitas,
You sound like you have a lot of knowledge on this. Can you tell me how these hormones play into gender identity?
It would seem that they are fairly inexorably linked.
Genetic Identity does not seem to be its completely own zipcode in self identity.
I recently watched a show about Apotemnophilia.
The thing which is interesting is that in this case they diagnose it medically as a "neurological disorder" in which otherwise sane and rational individuals express a strong and specific desire for the amputation of a healthy limb or limbs.
This diagnosis is not based on ones profession of a "self identity" because currently the average person believes one would have to be insane to cut off perfectly good body parts.
So the medical community suggests its due to hypothesized damage to the right parietal lobe, as the disorder has features in common with somatoparaphrenia, even though they have nothing more than a theory....not a single shred of evidence.
Still, when experienced very strongly, some people with apotemnophilia come to feel discontented with their bodies and want to actually remove an otherwise healthy limb, a condition called body integrity identity disorder.
Body integrity identity disorder.
I would very much like your opinion on this. On the one hand medical science doesnt see the identity disorder as the problem its the body and in the other case it is. Given that there are some serious hormone based considerations that could play a part, isnt it at least as likely that in both cases there could be medical reasons affecting self identity?
Michael
I notice that some readers have sympathy for transgender and intersex persons--a desire to understand and extend love. Others are quick with their judgments and condemnation of anything that does not fit precisely the religious rules. In the kingdom of God, as I understand it, here is great hope and grace for persons with complicated physical and emotional needs, a ready entrance for those who extend love and hope to others, but those who look on and merely judge or condemn have no chance without radical transformation of their perception, a radical new birth.
Graeme
Michael,
I don't know too much about the phsychology of identity disorder or any possible connection with biological causes. My knowledge is mainly in agricultural animal reproduction and sexual differentiation is part of that. Of course humans and agricultural animals and humans share the same sexual differentiation mechanims.
Though I don't know about any science behind it, there does seem to be a connection between Testosterone and typically male behavior. Testosterone passes the blood brain barrier when it is present so it could have an effect on behavior when the Y chromosome is present and gonads are producting testosterone but somatic cells are not responding to it, which is the case in Androgen Sensitivity.
The phenomenon of the Freemartin in bovine male female twins is the best evidence that I know of the effect of testosterone on behavior. In the case of male female twins in cows, the blood supply is shared between the calves. The female is born infertile because of the presence of the SRY gene on the Y chromosome of the male causes the release of Anti Mulerian Hormone, which causes the regression of the female reproductive tract. The female calf is often described as having "bullish" behavior, she is more active and agressive than the non-freemartin female but does not look like a bull calf.
______________________________________________________________
Carolyn Parsons
Since God allows distortions in Nature to happen, even to humans at birth, I just don't understand how sometimes people become prejudiced against those who were victimized by the distortion. It is very sad to see straight people being unkind to those who were born less fortunate.
It must be already a very heavy burden to be born with certain anomalies, left alone the psychological burden inflicted by others around, sometimes in the family, often in the church. I admire Carlitas' courage and openness writing so honestly and transparetly about her personal case. It shows that a lot of healing has already happened. Keep going Carlitas!
Thanks for your thoughts Carlitas,
You know far more on this than I do, so I appreciate it.
Even though cows arent people, perhaps what you have observed and studied shows there might be something to the hypothesis.
I know of men that have had complete Orchiectomy and must take testosterone. Do you know if the form it is taken in requires the same conversion process you discribe? Is DHT available or must it all be converted by the body?
Michael
One more thing: we should be wary of foisting burdens on other people's shoulders and then not lifting a finger to help them. It's very comfortable to prognosticate about what someone else should or should not do from the safety of our "normalcy".
Many people don't seem to get that.
I'm Intersex. Not Adventist though, so please forgive me if I'm intruding.
Yes, I've been called the "Spawn of Satan" by some religious fanatics. No big deal as long as they just asperge me with Holy Water and not petrol and a lighted match. Which has happened to some. I don't blame religion here, plenty do that kind of thing without bothering to manufacture a doctrinal excuse for it. Biblical literalism may not be helpful, but it's not to blame either. Matthew 19:12 makes it clear that Intersex people are born that way - "eunuchs from their mothers womb", and Isaiah 56:3-5 tells us that as long as we keep the basic rules common to all people of either sex, we'll have a special reward in the afterlife for all the hatred we endure on Earth.
I'm particularly interested in the science of sex and gender, and in particular syndromes such as 5ARD - 5 alpha reductase 2 deficiency (which Caritas has) and 17BHDD, - 17 beta hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase deficiency. Both of these are problematic, as they can (not always) cause a "natural sex change" from somewhat female appearance at birth to somewhat male appearance later.
Google "Guevedoces Urology" to see what I mean.
http://www.usrf.org/news/010308-guevedoces.html
In some places, up to 2% of live births have such a change. Gender Identity may be either male, female, neither, or something of both in such cases, to say they're "really male" or "really female" based on anything other than the individual testimony makes no sense. When the condition is diagnosed early, sex assignment surgery may be performed, usually to female. Sometimes (as with Caritas) they guess right. Other times, they guess wrong. No matter what you guess, there's always a risk of error.
See "Gender change in 46,XY persons with 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency and 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency." Cohen-Kettenis PT. Arch Sex Behav. 2005 Aug;34(4):399-410.
Even though Genesis 1:26 says that God created Male and Female, Genesis 1:8-16 also says that there's a firmament above the circle of the Earth keeping the waters above out, with windows letting in the rain when they open, and Job mentions storehouses of snow and hail above the Firmament too. Simplistic and Literalist statements about Biblical biology and Biblical cosmology are equally at variance with observation. It's not that simple.
I should mention I have 3BHDD - a rare form of Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia. In the late-onset non-salt-wasting form, it too can cause a "natural sex change", in either direction, and not just at puberty but late in life. The more common, severe forms cause changes before birth.
In 1985 I was diagnosed as an Intersex male; in 2005. after some changes that darn near killed me (I lost 1/3 my body mass in 3 months), I was re-assessed as an Intersex female. By then I looked at least as female as I'd looked male in 1985. For me, it was an immense relief, my Gender Identity had always been female. But when she has a body more befitting a Linebacker than a Cheerleader, what's a girl to do? Try to make the best of her situation, and count her blessings. Worse things happen at sea.
Maybe the title of this paper will aid understanding:
"Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus." Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041
Physically, anatomically male brain in otherwise female body - or the reverse - over-simplifies things too much, but it does capture the essence. Caritas has a female gender identity - as do I - but some of her brain is closer to a masculine norm - as is mine. Probably in similar areas, I'd love to see comparative brain scans, but that's just the geeky scientist in me talking. I think she'd understand, and being a biologist, would see the freemartin-like features in both of us. I'm straight, but probably more masculinised in other ways, this is complex, individuals vary.
Here's a simple paper that might also explain why we are as we are.
"Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation" Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35
The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.
We are as God made us. Some of us change appearance, including change in genital shape. We are born Male, Female, something of Both, or Neither though, and while that usually matches appearance at birth, sometimes it doesn't. It's set during gestation anyway, you can no more change it than unscramble an egg once it's cooked.
Hopefully this information will help you understand the facts. How you decide what the moral consequences of those facts are is another matter, and up to you.
Just remember - we're not nearly as rare as you might think. Caritas might be 1 in 200,000, I'm more like 1 in 10 million, but some Intersex conditions are more like 1 in 500. 1 in 300 men don't have the XY chromosomes most men (and some women) do, for example.
We don't need scholars to define gender for us. Men have a penis and women have a vagina. It's not.rocket science.
The Bible condemns sex between two of the same gender.
Anything more complicated than that is pseudo-scientific nonsense. I'm surprised anyone takes this stuff seriously.
There's only a very, very small proportion of the population who do not fit into the male/female definition, such as hermaphrodites and other such deformed people. I would gently suggest that such people should not be having sex.
(Yes, sex is not something we cannot live without.)
DHT isn't available. It gets converted from Testosterone via the enzymatic action of 5-a-reductase in all but a very few people (like Caritas).
See http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Steroidogenesis...
It's in the bottom of the picture.
17-B-HSD converts Androstenodione to Testosterone, and some Testosterone is also produced by 3-B-HSD converting Androstenodiol.
Both 5-a-reductase and 17-B-HSD deficiency cause feminisation, or rather, prevent normal masculinisation in the womb, but during puberty, the situation can partially reverse.
I am glad for the contributions of Zoe and Carlitas.
I'm just appealing at this time for us to keep this thread on track and not be sidetracked with unresolvable arguments. Some comments are just too easy to pillory, but we should abandon this urge.
Dear Pagophilus “Anything more complicated than this pseudo-scientific nonsense. I'm surprised anyone takes this stuff seriously.”
Where is your compassion for humanity? This is the problem with many individuals that are doctrine focused—they lose their focus on compassion.
“Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow human being, just as I had pity on you?” Matt 18:33
Pagophilus,
Aren't you ashamed of yourself? Your comments and your arrogance are outreageous! Don't you have ANY sensitivity toward others? And you call yourself a Christian? You must be a very crazy person!!!! The worst, though, is that you don't see it!
Are you going to church tomorrow? I bet you are. Don't forget to pray for those people. Pray a lot for yourself,too! You need it!!!
If you were born straight, good for you. I was too! But there is nothing more IDIOTIC and INSANE than taking a legalistic position on this issue and throw rocks on those that GOD allowed to be born with a distorted gender nature.
Why do you offend people that way? Why do you have to make a comment so rude and gross? You owe a BIG apology to those people who live captive in a body that is unbalanced. BIG APOLOGY!
But I doubt you will do this. You simply don't get it, do you?
I suggest the moderator of this forum DELETE PAGOPHILUS' comments above immediately. Nobody should be allowed to write things like that. Nobody should be subject to such offensive comments. We have some people making serious comments about the issue, and about themselves, and there comes one legalist putting them down as if he were God's apointee to judge people. Yeah, "The Saint"...., apparently with absolute no knowledge about the issue and it's complications.
Shame on Pagophilus!
Please DELETE those comments, I beg!!!
"We don't need scholars to define gender for us. Men have a penis and women have a vagina. It's not.rocket science."
Oddly enough, I'm a Rocket Scientist - headed the spaceflight avionics development team for FedSat, and helped JPL with a tricky problem they had with the MESSENGER spacecraft.
Rocket Science is easy in comparison. Cases such as Petra Henderson's where she became pregnant through auto-fertilisation after a botched hernia repair make even my head spin.
Then there's the cases of "natural sex change" which are a nightmare for the patient, as opposed to the "Get Out Of Hell Free" card it was for me. Cases like this one:
http://home.vicnet.net.au/%7Eaissg/2010_FamCA_237.pdf
You see, we're not talking about experimental animals here, though some of us do indeed volunteer as subjects to help our fellow humans. We're talking about 14 year old girls like Sally.
Legally, the "men have outies, women have innies" doesn't work so well. Not for people with neither, nor for people with both, nor indeed for people born with one but now have the other.
From one court case:
"Taking this situation to its logical conclusion, Mrs. Littleton, while in San Antonio, Texas, is a male and has a void marriage; as she travels to Houston, Texas, and enters federal property, she is female and a widow; upon traveling to Kentucky she is female and a widow; but, upon entering Ohio, she is once again male and prohibited from marriage; entering Connecticut, she is again female and may marry; if her travel takes her north to Vermont, she is male and may marry a female; if instead she travels south to New Jersey, she may marry a male.”
Again, we're talking about real people here, not cyphers, nor hypotheticals.
Take comfort though, Pagophilus. You're not alone in your beliefs about biology, nor your denial of facts. You're not even uncommon. Many believe that our existence is "against family values", that children and even university students should be kept ignorant of our existence "for the good of society". They mean well, you see. They're just scared, afraid, confused and uncomfortable. They desperately look for a justification for that, so they don't feel guilty about it. All too human.
Unfortunately, some of them have Intersex children. That rarely ends well.
Many have some compassion for those like Caritas and myself. But who has compassion for you?
Pagophilus - "Ice Lover" - I have, for what little that's worth. I'm sorry you're confused, you don't understand. Maybe we can help, hopefully without coming across as arrogant know-it-alls who are too full of themselves. The fact that two Intersex people have commented here might help you understand that while we're a minority, we're not an insignificant one. We walk among you, more of us than you think. Usually keeping our heads down, as it can be dangerous, even fatal, to be too conspicuous.
George Tichy - please have some compassion for Pagophilus.
I know injustice and cruelty provokes righteous wrath. But please read 1 Corinthians 13. Has Pahophilus fractured my skull with a crowbar, as others have? No. Has he attempted to burn me to death, as others have? No.
One should not be provoked by trifles.
He's expressing an all-too-common viewpoint, one that most people aren't aware exists. The antidote to hatred and fear is not anger, it's Caritas - Charity. Compassion. Love. Being so aware of our own fallibility that we have to forgive others, or we can't forgive and thus live with ourselves. No matter what problems I may have, don't you realise his are worse?
Censorship hides wounds that may fester in the dark. The cleansing antidote is not darkness, but light.
Zoe Brain,
You know what? Sometimes enough is enough. Some people just think they are God's representatives. As if God went out on vacation and left them in charge. I don't care when people are adamant and straightforward when talking about ideas, theology, business, or religion. I am too! But when they offend others on a personal basis, especially showing such a profound ignorance about a so sensitive subject, I really can't take it.
I can't imagine how much of this BS (Bold Statements) you guys have to take from "the saints".... But I guess you must already be used to it, right?
*Chuckle*
Yes, just a bit. I guess it's a lot easier to forgive someone when you're the target, rather than some innocent victim. But please try to. Cruelty is eradicated by Kindness, not Anger. Anger's an energy you can use, but please make it your servant, not your master.
On purely pragmatic grounds, it works better. The difficulty is being genuine about it, and not sanctimoniously saying "I'll pray for your salvation, you 'orrible misbegotten sinner you". You have to genuinely care, not piously and arrogantly prate about it.
I've seen terrible things. One Intersex girl with stigmata - her parents nailed her to her bedroom door when company came, she still bears the scars on her hands many decades later.
I still tear up about that, she was so matter of fact about it, so "well everyone has problems".
You have to either become bitter and twisted, bent on bloody revenge and retribution, or become unreasonably kind, seeing the goodness in everyone as well as the capacity for evil in yourself and others. Seeing that the words "forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do" are possibly some of the most important in the whole Bible. To educate, not punish. To banish fear with knowledge and above all, compassion.
I'm no saint, but even I know that.
Best wishes, Zoe (and yes, Brain is my surname, not an alias).
Well said Zoe.
Pagophilus' comments come from his or her own history, worldview and view of God--none of which can be changed with anger or shaming.
Alden Thompson describes the struggle many people have (including me) in which the vertical (faithfulness to God) tends towards a total disregard for the horizontal (other people). The most extreme example of this is suicide bombing or holy wars.
This struggle is not easy and many people never sort it out. SDAs are taught (and this is probably common among other denominations as well) that we should be willing to lay down our lives for Christ. Often this is interpreted to mean that nothing or no one else has value by comparison.
Just something to pray about as we grow...
Another commenter on this site always points out that much of the behaviour we see from some people in the church stems from superstition--the idea that if they are wrong about something God will be mad at them.
I can testify to personal struggles with this--so it is very real.
I have 110% support to those who are not straight, as I am. I can understand that there are those who do not support, nor care to understand the gays, lesbians, and others; but it's the frothing, disproportionate hate, that exudes from people who claim to be Christians, that stymies and shocks me. It's almost as though, people take leave of their senses and reasoning powers. And if it makes you feel better, Spectrum is mild compared to some other Christian sites that i have been on.
Friends
In Christ's day leprosy was viewed as a "judgement of God" as were many other medical conditions. Today, for some, we still tend to make these misguided "judgements" rather than focusing on compassion for the individual. God loves each of us despite our "warts". The truth is we are unable to "judge" others, that is a job that is "uniquely God's" as God is the only one who can take all factors and understand the complexities of the individual.
One thing that is clear, God reaches down to each of us where we are. He offers love, understanding, healing and compassion for all. Should we do less?? I think you know the answer!!
All the best
Fred
This quarter's focus on Paul's message to the Galatians is totally wasted on most SDA's. He said we are not under the law, but we, like our prophet are addicted to it.
He was furious with them because they wanted to obey Old Covenant commandments regarding genitalia.
Paul, we need you again.
Harry
Pyalie, do you know that Hitler sent homosexuals to the gas chambers just like the Jews ? The homosexual -haters are in a very good company.
When there was a conference about the issue in Andrews not long ago, one (homosexual) cried out : somehow like "You dont are aware of your own sexuality, but judge others !" - - - -"Kind and degree of sexuality reach out from the very last fibre up to the highest peaks of ones spirit" Netzsche said. No, Pagophilus, there are not only penisses and vaginas.
I jusg got some poems of Sappho, the famous Greek lesbian, to get some understanding, some sympathy for thist world so strange and far away to me.
Can I recommend EVERYONE watch this TED Talk on anatomy and gender. It has a specific focus on Intersex and the vast spectrum that it includes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59-Rn1_kWAA
It really is an incredible lecture. Things are not as black and white as we thought. It's not as simple as penis or vagina. That much we know from hard science, not 'pseudoscience.'
Also, can I just say that I'm really glad and impressed that Spectrum is beginning to talk about Gender and Sex and it's variants and not just about Sexuality. The discussion over Gender and Sex (Transgender, Genderqueer, Cisgender, Intersex etc) is very important. I'm proud that Spectrum is beginning to tackle it.
- Also I'll quickly point out, because I think it's an important distinction, that gender identity and physical sex are different things and should not be conflated. Other than that. A really great post to get the discourse started. =)
Twid Widmer
Candidate for MFA in Theater Pedagogy, Virginia Commonwealth University
BA English (Emphasis: Theater), Pacific Union College
Pago wrote in part: "We don't need scholars to define gender for us. Men have a penis and women have a vagina. It's not.rocket science.
The Bible condemns sex between two of the same gender."
Absolutely in harmony, as I see it, with the official view of the SDA church and the church position is Bible based. If there are anomalies, and I have no doubt there may be, those affected still must, as all of us must, submit to Biblical standards of moral conduct. Nothing is too hard for the Lord. He will enable us to follow His commands if we surrender our bodies to Him.
One would be naive to believe that Spectrumites can solve any of the problems associated with this topic.
Rich Hannon,
I'm very impressed by your courage along with the posters who have given insight and science on this issue.
Twid Widmer said above, "Things are not as black and white as we thought." Right on. May I press it further, that life is in COLOR- plus the regions of the electromagnetic spectrum our eyes can't see- and seldom are things black and white.
Best wishes in 2012. Dave Langworthy md gig harbor wa
I hope this won't come out as an insensitive comment. I am a christian believer and am also a student of biology. During my undergrad studies I was fascinated by gender, sexuality and the genetics of being male and or female. Ever since then I have always been convinced that these issues are not always as straight forward as we would like to believe. Some of my friends wonder if I am still a believer because of the questions that I raise based on these ambiguities or should I rather say uncertainties.
Reconciling this biological reality with what I believe and understand to be the bible's teaching on sexual identity and homosexuality has been very difficult. It has always pained me that we as a church have never really been open to discuss these issues in terms of the realities for those whom providence has not provided a clear case of male/female. I guess it is not even possible to imagine what their lives are like being ostracized for things that they cannot change.
Your Friend writes: "Absolutely in harmony, as I see it, with the official view of the SDA church and the church position is Bible based"
YF, I have to wonder whether you actually read the article. Or if you did, whether you understood me at all. Because if you had, even a little bit, you would have understood that the whole point was to examine the church's position from a Biblical perspective. And I finished by saying:
"It does, however, propose that the grounding of the current position statement is insufficient to support its conclusion. That is bad enough. It would seem that the demonstratably weak definition of gender as male + female only is a significant challenge to the adequacy of the church’s rationale for universally condemning homosexually."
But you apparently ignore that and comment that a) Pag's view is in harmony with the church's position, and 2) that the church's position is Bible-based. Now, you can say anything you want, but a comment like yours pretty much ignores the content of the article.
And, please note, I am trying to understand and exegete the Bible properly. I am not casting off the Bible as normative, I am trying to determine what it does - and in this case - what it doesn't say. And presumably the most fundamental axiom of a conservative is that they follow what the Bible says. The complaint against so-called liberals is that they depart from the Bible's teaching.
So you, and other conservatives, ought to appreciate any attempt at understanding the Bible more clearly. And, if you think my argument is faulty, then by all means provide some counter-argument.
If you are unwilling to engage in this way I have to wonder whether you are not really interested in following the Bible, but rather just use the Bible as moral cover to justify your current position(s). That is a harsh judgment and one I'd prefer not to conclude. But it is worthless for you to just complain, when the article is ostensibly trying to understand the Bible's norms, then act upon them. And just because I'm critical of the church's position doesn't make me anti-Bible. We never discover truth and discard error without reconsidering the status-quo.
Based on the church's stance on abortion; it is likely that any future amendment to the statement might counsel intersexed individuals to "make the best choices possible" between "God and the individual"--rather than redefine the male/female paradigm. Sharper language might assert that "at our current state of knowledge some individuals find themselves unable to fit this paradigm medically".
In other words, the basis of the statement might not change at all--there'll just be an added recognition that there are "outliers". If anything, like I said before, Matthew 19:12 might be marshaled.
At the most strict, a revised statement might advise celibacy.
Pago was trolling
No bevin, I'm not trolling. I'm stating the plainly obvious. You can twist anything and make it sound scientific, as Paul put it "science, falsely so-called".
Remember Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is most likely the correct one.
Your views on gender, intersex, homosexuality etc come from your own cultural conditioning, not.necessarily from reality. Other cultures have differing views. You may well remember Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying that Iran doesn't have the same problems with homosexuals that America has. They don't, because it's not an accepted or acceptable part of their society and culture. This is because their view of the matter is much closer to the Bible than the so-called Christian USA. In fact, many aspects of Islamic life are more Biblical than the Western Christian way of life.
Pagophilus: "There's only a very, very small proportion of the population who do not fit into the male/female definition, such as hermaphrodites and other such deformed people. I would gently suggest that such people should not be having sex. (Yes, sex is not something we cannot live without.)"
Such a flippant solution you have there to a very difficult issue, Pagophilius. I would gently suggest that you and your ilk lead the way by showing people how easy it is to be single and celibate. Judging from your personality, I don't think a warm, loving intimate relationship was ever in the cards for you anyway.
It would also have the added bonus of people like you no longer reproducing.
is anyone else choking with laughter on the irony?
Zoe Brain
Thank you so much for your educating us on this. I am also humbled at your attitude and counsel.
I wish you the very best in life. Thanks for joining in here!
Michael
Nice you could join us Zoe Brain! I appreciate your input as a fellow intersexed person, your contribution to the discussion is invaluable.
______________________________________________________________
Carolyn Parsons
"You may well remember Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying that Iran doesn't have the same problems with homosexuals that America has. They don't, because it's not an accepted or acceptable part of their society and culture. This is because their view of the matter is much closer to the Bible than the so-called Christian USA." - Pagophilus
Can anyone go lower than this?????????
Kat Walker, I was celibate and single for 31 years until I got married. There is nothing wrong with being single or celibate, nor is it difficult to be so. Society conditions us to believe it is impossible to be celibate, but it isn't. Even putting Adventism aside, anyone will have a greater chance of remaining celibate if they develop a large range of interests and put aside television and trashy reading materials.
Also in Trinidad and Tobago,
I'd like to thank-you for the first posting you made with the scripture used regarding eunuchs. It should serve to remind us all that we all are not created the same nor have the same circumstances.
Some of the rest of you have made comments that are perfectly laughable when surmising what the bible (God) would have us do in all circumstances such as those being discussed (intersexed). There are no "Thus sayest the Lord..." in all situations and being intersexed is one of them!
It has been commented on that these sexual/heredity issues occur in a very small section of the population. So... does this mean that these affected individuals are not important or that we are wasting our time reading/blogging about this on Spectrum???
I commend my relative, Carolyn, for being so transparent and brave about a very sensitive and personal subject. She has many insightful things to say about a topic that most will ever have to deal with.
Kim
Pago, what Ahmajinedab actually said is that Iran doesn't "have any homosexuals" which is patently untrue. They just kill them if they are discovered.
I have seen several films about intersex conditions, and for me, it made it seem clear that if there are such biological differences that we can see, why can we not realize that there undoubtedly biological differences in the brain that result in people with gender identity problems (transsexuals) and people with sexual orientation problems (gays and lesbians).
Thank you so much, Rich, for writing on this subject. As to how Intersex variations affect the typical rigid male/female understanding of biology that the Bible expresses, and why this affects the basis for our position on homosexuality - another thing to remember is that there was absolutely no understanding in Bible times that some people are born with a same-sex orientation. It was simply assumed that every one was attracted to the opposite sex, and those who wanted same-sex relationships were perverted. It was not until the late 18th century that scientists began to recognize that people were born with different sexual orientations.
Remember what we read in Genesis: Male and female He created them. Throughout the whole animal kingdom we see male and female, not in-between or third genders. Yes, there are aberrations but that is because of the fall and degeneration of creation due to sin. The small minority who do not clearly fit into the male/female categories must be treated on an individual basis, however we must not use the extreme minority to develop loose standards that will allow the majority to do as they please and break God's holy law with impunity.
Gender (and truth) is not determined by how you feel or what your inclinations are. Gender is determined by genetics and is manifested physically by the presence or absence of certain anatomical features. Truth is determined by the word of God.
Carrol Grady, you have seen several films about intersex conditions. And I have seen several films about evolution. That doesn't give either position any validity. I could make you a film about life on mars if you like (in fact, the whole field of astrobiology is a study of imagined fantasy - they discovered an earth-like planet somewhere. The problem is that it is so far away that they can only tell there's a planet there because of its effect on the light coming from its star. If they can't even see it, they have no hope of ever finding out what is there?)
Anything can be made to sound scientific.
I like tidy and simple. So articles such as the one Rich Hannon wrote about "Adventism and the Intersex Problem" are unsettling to me. Especially so because of a seemingly simple statement made by Jesus.
When questioned about divorce, Jesus seemed to take a hard-line stance (Matthew 19:3-12). So His listeners asked a second question: How did He harmonize His hard-line position with the seemingly easy path to divorce allowed by Moses?
"Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard," Jesus replied. "But it was not that way from the beginning." For me, the implications of that statement are nothing short of mind-boggling. Here's why.
Seventh-day Adventists teach that marriage and the Sabbath are the only two spiritual institutions that date all the way back to Eden, thus pre-dating humanity's fall into sin. Yet purely on the basis of spiritual inadequacy, God was willing to amend the rules governing this most sacred institution--marriage--even though He knew the change He was permitting was far short of the Edenic ideal and would yield great pain, especially for the women who were thus spurned.
Really think about what Jesus said: Just because people were spiritually immature--stubborn, selfish, whatever--God changed the rules governing one of the two spiritual institutions handed down from Eden. Note that He didn't change the rules because some natural calamity was threatening human survival. He didn't do it because the gene pool was being weakened. He did it because people refused to grow up spiritually.
Now, as I understand it, spiritual inadequacy can be changed--at least to a great degree. We can do something about it. That's what many sermons are about. That's what much of scripture addresses. We don't have to remain estranged from God. We don't have to remain so selfish. We can, by reaching out for divine power, grow spiritually. We can change. We can be born again. We can overcome besetting sins. Some Adventists even claim we can become perfect. So why would God adjust the rules of marriage rather than just demand much-needed spiritual growth?
It strikes me that it would be a lot more reasonable to expect spiritual growth from the rank and file than it would be to expect a 180-degree re-orientation on the part of people facing some of the amazingly convoluted sexual identities I've read about when I've done a Google search on "sexual ambiguity." To me, the latter seems organic, physiological--and therefore lot more unchangeable and inescapable than the former. Yet even for the former, the Bible tells us, God was willing to change the rules of marriage. Seemingly, He saw the situation in Moses's time as being so totally out of control that He appears to have opted merely to try to do some damage control rather than cling to an ideal.
If that was God's response to people who merely couldn't get their act together spiritually--had hard hearts--how would God deal with the people facing the truly challenging circumstances that Rich Hannon describes and that some commenters say they personally face? More pertinent still, how would God have us relate to them?
Jim
Thanks for that perspective, Jim!
Pago, the natural animal world is FULL of examples of sexual variations of all kinds. Open your mind a little and look around you. Read and learn.
No problem with homosexuals in Iran? Not when homosexuality is a crime punishable by death.
http://tinyurl.com/74wsx6b
While I do not agree that this is a practice approved by God, I also think there is a better way to treat our fellow human beings. I like how Dr. Tim Jennings discusses this issue.
http://tinyurl.com/7ezgk85
"Our responsibility as representatives of the gospel of Jesus Christ is to promote the truth about God’s character of love in word and deed. If we meet a homosexual we should treat them like Christ treated the prostitute – with love, kindness, patience and grace. It is not our responsibility to convict another person of sin, that is the job of the Holy Spirit. Our job is to reveal Christ so clearly and fully that people are drawn to Him and He will change their hearts. And when the heart changes then any inappropriate behavior will change as well."
Ultimately there are many things we can't change in life and we have to leave it up to God to "sort things out".
What we can do is reach out to people with love and compassion!! Isn't that the real mission of the church and everyone who claims to be a "true Christian"??
Salvation is really about healing the damage done!!
Fred
Twid, I just watched the lecture at the link you posted. Very provocative. I think her examples of the various kinds of intersex should be instructive for people who can't seem to wrap their minds around it.
A book I would like to recommend is _As Nature Made Him_ by John Colapinto. It is the story of one of twin boys whose penis was destroyed during a botched circumcision. The decision was made to raise him as a girl, as the theory was that it was nurture, not nature, that determined gender identity. Dr. John Money, a researcher at Johns Hopkins, directed this treatment, and the case was used in textbooks as proof of the importance of nurture for decades. However, the twin raised as a girl behaved like a boy and eventually, after learning his history, reverted to being a boy. Tragically, both twins committed suicide in their 20s. This story makes clear the immutability of gender identity.
Wow, what a discussion.
First, on immutability of gender identity, one case alone does not by any means prove it. That is merely an anecdotal experience. My understanding is it is quite malleable. And can change. I cannot quote the source but teens are often ambiguous about their sexual identity. So gender identity is not carved in stone.
I think Zoe Brian's comments are amazingly inclusive and wise from one in the heat of the battle.
The Bible is broad in it's commands and takes a more basically practical approach than a specific one on this matter.
I thus see prohibitions in scripture against homosexuality as practical in nature. Homosexual practice results in decreased life span and diseases that can spread to the population at large as we have seen in our lifetime. The prohibitions were thus a sort of ancient quarantine so to speak. In other words, God's best solution to a difficult problem. Leprosy was handled similarly. Some will be hurt, but the results of sin sometimes require this type of "surgery".
Was making lepers unclean wrong? Well in a limited sense yes, but in a larger sense it gave a longer per capita life span.
As a surgeon I have had to cut off an arm to save the life. Sometimes God did something similar to save mankind. I see the story of Sodom this way. Sounds cruel, but the consequences of not acting were worse still. We have yet to see the consequences of our broad acceptance of homosexuality.
I entered a legitimate comment and the "filter" said it was "spam". This is very frustrating.
Can't it even go somewhere for review? That was a very long comment. I did not even get a chance to enter the code.
Apologies.That doesn't happen very often. And I don't know why it happened to you. We have to employ spam filter software, else we would get hundreds of bogus comments a day. - website editor
The OT did not go into motive. It was Jesus that expanded on the rules.In the OT if a man committed sodomy it was a mortal sin in that the sodomite was executed.It did not matter in the OT whether one wanted to have sex outside of prescribed limits it was only the actual act that counted.
If one takes Jesus's views on divorce as an example where he equates the lustful desire with the act itself then the OT proscriptions on sodomy would extend to those who are sexually attracted to like gender whether or not the actual act is done.
The OT was less onerous as far as behaviour was concerned so those who accuse sincere church members of being legalists do not know what they are talking about.
Invaribaly when Jesus healed or forgave the counsel was" go and sin no more" In todays world the view is that the love and compassion of God is a licence to continue in transgression not live a victorious life.
"In the OT if a man committed sodomy it was a mortal sin in that the sodomite was executed."
What if the person just was "gender undefined" but not committing any sodomy. No gay relationship, no sex involved at all. Would such a person be tolerated in the camp?
And today? Because as I see every gay person is automatically assumed to be involved in sinful sexual practices. Is this really true? How would a gay individual be treated even if not involved in any type of relationship or sexual activity?
Nobody should attempt to say that such individuals do not exist. THis would just revela bias and ignorance.
And what if a "practicing" gay converts to the Gospel and changes his/her life? Still a gay by nature. What would be people's attitude in church toward this new convert? Would "the saints" accept him/her as a repentant sinner who was now saved?
George
Any sinner who is converted and living a victorious life is welcomed into the church. Actually one does not have to be all that victorious to qualify.Divorced persons who remarry are allowed to be church members and hold leadership positions while still actually" living in sin" with their newer partner.
If we applied that practice across the board we could actually have openly practicing homosexuals included as well as active thieves and what have you.
By and large most denominations strain at the gnat and swollow the camel so to speak when deciding what is and is not acceptable. The SDAs are no different .One can wade in the water on Sabbath but not swim. One can practice consecutive polygamy but not concurrent polygamy so to speak.
If one believes that we are as we are because we are made that way by God than we have no say in either our faults or virtues and they are one and the same .If we are as we are by eithrer nature or nurture than of course nothing is our own fault and we are indeed guiltless and there really is no need for a "Saviour".
Rich, if it is true that sexuality is to some extent a social construction as you write, then this must be true not only of traditional male/female binaries but of the concept of "intersexuality" itself. It would be deeply ironic, then, if in the name of challenging a particular kind of essentialist ontology one in the end simply replaced it with another to serve a new social or political project. I can't help but wonder if your article unconsciously does this. When you write that "intersex is a genuine condition affecting many people", for example, you seem to be signalling that you favor a particular social construction of "intersex", even though it is, from what I gather, a highly contested and medically controversial term. Here is an abstract I came across to an article in the Journal of Sex Research by Leonard Sax that illustrates what a difference one's point of view and the categories one chooses to use can make purely on the scientific side of the conversation:
"Anne Fausto‐Sterling's suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late‐onset adrenal hyper‐plasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto‐Sterling's estimate of 1.7%."
I realize this doesn't answer the theological or ethical questions of how the church should counsel intersex individuals or their parents. It might, though, help to put those questions into clearer perspective.
Carrol Grady - Fri, 12/30/2011 - 21:20
Tragically, both twins committed suicide in their 20s. This story makes clear the immutability of gender identity.
=================================
No it doesnt. It just provides evidence that nuture is an ineffective mechanism for aligning gender identity.
Michael
The mistake built into all this is to assume genitalia, chest, brain, extremities, etc. are consistent in their male/ female end of a one dimensional spectrum. True for most attributes of most people, false for a large number of people, and way wrong for a 1/1000 set which still represents thousands of Sda
As a Seventh-Day Adventist pediatric endocrinologist I have read this article and the following comments with interest. As a pediatric endocrinologist (MD), I specialize in children with hormone problems, including Disorders of Sexual Development (DSD). "Intersex" is no longer the appropriate term for the collection of these disorders which are very variable in pathophysiology. It was replaced by DSD a few years ago. I am not a quack and do not practice "pseudo-science" as some have claimed. I'm the product of the good old Adventist education system, all the way through Loma Linda for my MD. These are well described and frequently well understood disorders and can be explained in layman's terms to the families of these children in ways that they understand what is going on with their child. Just like one might explain to a family that their child has a heart defect or cleft palate or any other disorder in the development of their child. In the case of DSD, the development disorder is the genitalia. The category of DSD is a collection of many different types of disorders with varying presentations, treatments, and repercussions, so one has to be careful when making generalizable comments about DSD.
As you can imagine, I cringe with every post from Pagophilus. Although it has been stated in these posts, I do want to reiterate that gender is NOT always determined by genetics and that physical manifestations are NOT always consistent with gender identity. That would make life simple, but as we all know life is not simple. I'm sorry Pagophilus, but we're all the result of sin and everyone of us has defects and are deformed due to sin, not just those with DSD.
One aspect of this discussion that I don't think has been clarified sufficiently is the distinction between gender identity and sexual orientation. This article uses issues with gender identity in the context of DSD to question the grounding of the church's position on sexual orientation (or rather the behavior associated with a homosexual orientation). The terms or concepts begin to be used interchangeably in the following posts. However, these two issues or concepts are very different. Gender identity is whether a person feels more typically male or typically female. Sexual orientation is whether a person is attracted to the same gender or the opposite gender. They are completely separate from each other and are not interchangeable. Gender identity is typically known very early in life, 4, 5, 6 years old. Sexual orientation is not necessarily known as early. Dr. Shepherd, teens are frequently "ambiguous" regarding their sexual orientation but not their gender identity, very different.
In response to Dr. Shepherd's comments regarding the spread of disease via homosexual relations, a correction. It was promiscuity (oh yeah, and blood transfusions), not homosexual relations that spread such "diseases". For the past 20 + years, the spread has primarily been through heterosexual promiscuity and not homosexual. And remember, it was God who cut off Sodom, not man. We have to be very careful when we, particularly physicians, begin to think we can be God.
I want to thank those with DSD who shared about their lives and experiences, an invaluable insight into this challenging topic. It was a thought provoking article. Although there are babies born with ambiguous genitalia, that doesn't mean that a gender isn't assigned to them or that they don't have a gender identity that is either male or female. The vast majority of people with DSD have a gender identity which may or may not match their external genitalia (I understand that Carlitas is one of exceptions as Carlitas stated feeling neither male nor female). So, classification of sexual orientation based on gender identity, i.e. male or female, though not external genitalia, as a grounding still seems appropriate to me. I think our church should show a more loving attitude toward our LGBT brothers and sisters as we are all children of God.
@Alen: "Homosexual practice results in decreased life span and diseases that can spread to the population at large as we have seen in our lifetime. "
So can and does heterosexual practices, and in fact, we live in a global society where 'heterosexual practice' results in more spread of disease, infestation, and death than results from homosexual practices. Your assessment is based upon the fear driven misinformation of the mid 1980's. Sources abound to educate yourself on this matter. Time to catch up.
*later* (Having just now read the physician's comments above, I don't feel the need to site sources, though they are plentiful and easy to find if required)
@Michael: "No it doesnt [sic]. It just provides evidence that nuture [sic] is an ineffective mechanism for aligning gender identity."
Which goes to show that nurture is an ineffective mechanism for mis-aligning gender identity - which in turn goes to show the biological immutability of gender identity and orientation, as Carroll pointed out.
---
1 Corinthians 13:13
MDB... so, from a clinical perspective, LGBTI are sexual orientations rather than gender identity definitions, correct?
The Old Testament and the SDA position statement address behavior. The author addresses condition—either physical or orientation and goes on to make the case for degrees of freedom in behavior based upon a congenital abnormality or orientation from birth.
To the point of relating to those with a same sex orientation in a redemptive sense, the author makes an excellent case. However, the author comes mighty close to endorsement of an aberrant behavior.
The One who said: “Neither do I condemn thee,” also said: “Go and sin no more.” Behavior does matter.
The old Hymn "Just as I am without one Plea" is a statement that one comes to the throne of Grace for healing without any excuses or "yes, but's"
Christ is not in the business of endorsements. but of healing. Tom Z
Yes. Speaking as a Liscenced Professioanl Counselor, they are clinical terms of sexual orientation (attraction).
when a doctor bothers to post on this website ...I think we should take note...this so seldom happens which blows my mind since SDA sponsored so many docs in their times past. the ones who bother to take time to take time here...W O W. We should give them time. Tom Zwemer bothers.
In the LGBTI alphabet soup, LGB refer to sexual orientation: Lesbian, gay and bisexual. The T is for transgendered or transexual, this refers to gender identity and transition to gender apearance to match the individual's sense of gender. The I refers to the intersexed spectrum, which is included by some in the LGBT designation others, expecially younger folkes often use LGBTQ or LGBTIQ to include the gender queer, those who don't fit the normal gender binary either in identity or expression of gender.
Dr. MDB is correct in that the term Intersex is not the correct medical term. Disorders of sexual differentiation just doen't work as an itentity or as a way to speak of the community of those who are touched with these differentiation disorders. DSD works in the medical setting and when speaking with parents about their child's condition because it takes emphasis away from sex.
It is good to hear that medical and other specialists dealing with patients and families are done with John Money's theory of the primacy of genitals to the gender identity of children. Carrol mentioned the book "As Nature Made Him" is an essential read for people who want to understand the influence of John Money's theory and the disaster he made of David Reimer's life, which ultimatly lead to David's suicide. I hope that all physicians recognize that early plastic surgery on infant's genitals is not a good practice because gender identity is not formed in an infant.
______________________________________________________________
Carolyn Parsons
Interesting discussion. I think that a reason we have difficulties dealing with that issue is that there is often a confusion or an amalgam between the biological, the behavioral and the identity aspects. But if we look at the issue using a biblical perspective, you can come to an understanding. In the Bible, "being" is not an excuse for "doing". We are sinners but God doesn't consider this a good excuse to sin.
It is clear from Scripture that we were created "male and female" and I believe that God knows more about His own creation than anybody else. God didn't create any intersex at all. But He didn't create either any liar, thief, killer, etc. But because of the sin of our first parents, we have an inclination for all of that. Is it good? No as the Bible call it sin.
We know also that, as a result of sin, we are not living in perfect conditions and that "accidents" do happen. And these "accidents" also happen in the biology world. When a baby is born blind, we all know that it was not supposed to happen in the original plan and if this occurred it was because of a genetic defect or an accident at birth or due to the poisoning or irradiation of one of the parents, etc. And while the child is blind from birth, no one will say that the situation is "normal".
But what about sexual orientation? If we accept the idea that it is greatly defined by our biology, then we can expect to have some problems here too with some people having some physical aspects classifying them as male but some biochemistry aspects classifying them as female (or vice versa). It is particular difficult for those who are not "straight" because sexual orientation is not just a personal characteristic. It also influences how we connect with the rest of the human population and how we love and are loved by those around us.
But again, is "being" an excuse for "doing"? Not according to the Bible. God doesn't condemn people for being what they are but for what they choose to do (in the same way, we are not condemned for being sinners but for choosing to stay in our sins even when a way out is offered) .
Concerning the homosexuality behavior, God is clear about it. Is it easy? No. Is there a way out or a solution? The answer depends on one's faith. If the person believes in God and wants to honor Him, then He will helps him or her to live through his or her condition. Again, it doesn't mean that it will be easy (some people stay blind all their live but they can live through that by the grace of God). But nothing is impossible to God and, if accidents do happen, miracles also do happen.
@Also in Trinidad and Tobago....I love this "Alden Thompson describes the struggle many people have (including me) in which the vertical (faithfulness to God) tends towards a total disregard for the horizontal (other people). The most extreme example of this is suicide bombing or holy wars."
As I read the threads and go over in my head the vitriolic and vicious "sanctified" bigotry against non-heterosexuals institutionalized in our dear church, I wonder if God has set us up to teach us how to love those the world deemed "unlovable"?...that horizontal thing.
I wonder if our ability to love is tested in the fires of 'loving our neighbors as ourselves'? I wonder if as someone pointed out, since God has allowed "birth defects" and other physical and psychological "abnormalities", if he's not aiding us in stepping out of our comfortable bubbles and teaching us how to truly exhibit Divine love, and not that selfish perversion we often replace it with?
What I find disturbing often, is when people's lives become "topics" and "issues" and "problems" as if their humanity was not only damaged beyond repair, but so their chances of salvation. The very obsession with non-heterosexuality is a symptom of a darker side to our collective spirituality. The whole thing feeds right into the unregenerate heart's craving for self-righteousness....a righteousness that can only thrive by stepping on the humanity of the despised. A righteousness that the Bible compares to filthy rags.
Quoting Scriptures to make this "apartheid" palatable is obscene, diabolic and disgusting. It shows we have failed miserably at developing and nurturing that horizontal relationship you quoted. Only those who've developed both the vertical and the horizontal relating can safely be entrusted with eternal life. The rest are just too high risk!
Klimber,
I think that you would find that many commenters who have stringent black/white viewpoints are also the ones that have never had a handicapped (mental, physical) friend/relative in their lives. And it is revealed in their attitudes- in the way and manner in which they write (communicate).
It is easier to deal with life's problems by quoting scripture and then go and live your own life....
I've seen very little from the "conservatives" on these threads that has been compassionate about what these individuals and their families face. However this doesn't surprise me since it simply isn't part of their own experience.
But I doubt that anything I express will change anything since they have "truth" on their side and that makes them "right". Yes, "right" but with little compassion...
Kim
Kim Green,
I tend to agree with you that you can tell that some people have limited exposure to people different to themselves by the way they come across in conversation.
Sometimes, too, the individual may know someone who is different to them--but they come up with a way to compartmentalize them in their own mind--so that it doesn't "spread" and force a change in their thinking. They might either:
1. Create an exception.
This sometimes takes to form of dishonesty. They ignore any evidence that is contrary.
or worse
2. Create a template from that experience.
So you'll have the "one friend" (usually more like an acquaintance) who is "like that" and you'll judge everyone else by that criteria.
eg. "I know a black man who's very wealthy. You're black, why can't you be wealthy too?"
or "I know a man who was like that and he prayed and was delivered." (Implying that others should have the same experience)
or they
3. Theorize.
This one is easy and deceptive. It often takes the form of what you called "hiding behind scripture". The person rattles off a biblical opinion of the issue and then walks away without any obligations.
"God will help you!" or "Pray about it." or even (sometimes) "I'll pray for you.
People like that are broken too. Jesus speaks about people who multiply the burdens of others and do not lift a finger to help them. I think this is one scenario where "I'll pray for you." is appropriate.
When we do the right thing (be compassionate etc.) it will shine brighter than the hatred/indifference that others show.
Kilmber,
Sometimes I think this particular issue is a test as well.
The church does not seem to be doing any better than it did with the last test (of a slightly different nature): racism (Jim Crow and segregation to be exact). There may be other tests, by the way.
As a denomination we have a peculiar problem whereby our general understanding of our specific mission--the Three Angels Messages--doesn't seem to parallel anything that Christ did on earth while he was here.
Some people keep insisting (very earnestly) that we have a mission different to all other denominations--but I don't think it unreasonable to expect our mission to resemble Jesus' mission. Currently I am thinking about this. In other words, why does our peculiar mission (as currently expressed/practiced) seem to bear little resemblance to what Jesus did in the NT?
Anyways, to shorten the point, looking out for the poor, downtrodden and outcast is at the core of Jesus' mission. Currently I am not sure how well we're doing beyond occasional lip-service.
I am not optimistic that our church will pass this test (and our denomination won't be alone)--but that's another post altogether.
Also in Trinidad and Tobago,
Thanks so much for your post, I always find your posts enlightening.
Kim
Disclaimer: I'm the father of a gay adult daughter. Leaving aside the very interesting discussion above on Intersex issues, and looking at (traditional?) male homosexuality, it would be interesting to look at the specific prohibitions in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. The English translations say that if a man lies with a man, as with a woman, it's abomination. Forgive the graphic details (presumably we're all adults here). Our common understanding of "lying" indicates male-female, vaginal sex, period. And a man "lying" with a man implies anal sex. So if two men engage in oral-genital sex to gratification, or mutual masturbation, etc., they are not specifically "lying" with a man, according to the language of those verses. And of course the Old Testament doesn't even address lesbian sex.
"So if two men engage in oral-genital sex to gratification, or mutual masturbation, etc., they are not specifically "lying" with a man, according to the language of those verses. And of course the Old Testament doesn't even address lesbian sex." -- Jiggs Gallagher
Jiggs,
Very interesting comment, and I guess we could look at this in a couple of ways. On the one hand I would be inclined to think the language was intended to convey physical intimacy rather than only intercourse. Your theory reminds me a little of Bill Clinton's famous denial when questioned about Monica Lewinski :) (He claimed he hadn't had sexual relations with her and later tried to justify this statement on the grounds they hadn't actually had intercourse.)
But lest we dismiss this too quickly, I think the absence of any mention of women is very significant, and might actually throw light on why male2male sex was prohibited in that time and place. (Some say that women were not mentioned simply because it had never occurred to women at that time to do something so perverse. I think that's a fallacious argument, as elsewhere there is mention of what to do with women who tried to have sex with animals).
There are a couple of clues in that period of history which suggest there may have been a significant gender imbalance – ie., there were more women than men. These are:
- A lot of wars were fought, with consequent loss of male lives; and
- Polygamy was common and was openly condoned
My theory therefore is that the prohibition of male2male sex was actually about ensuring that the available men (given they were in short supply) married women and produced offspring. It didn’t matter if women engaged in female2female sex, as this posed no threat to procreation.
If this was the basis of the prohibition, it renders it “localised” to that time and place.
Anon7: "We know also that, as a result of sin, we are not living in perfect conditions and that "accidents" do happen. And these "accidents" also happen in the biology world. When a baby is born blind, we all know that it was not supposed to happen in the original plan..."
So we can assume you are a supporter of gender reassignment and reparative surgery? Or is one to remain "blind" their whole life?
---
1 Corinthians 13:13
Comments here (& interestingly also re: the Sabbath hours http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/12/30/today-did-not-exist-some-adv...) claim that the challenges of the extremes from "normal" are so few that they should simply be ignored.
I would hope that understanding, grace, & compassion for the "very least of these" (in number) is exactly what should guide/inform our faith & praxis. After all, if our theology can't cover the extremes, it isn't addressing the true human condition. How many considered "abnormal" must have suffered in past ages. Christianity in the Middle Ages demonized left-handedness. Now we have the privilege of seeing how complex these issues are to help us not cause more suffering to our fellow travelers.
Thanks, Rich, for writing on this topic.
____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3
Pagophylus has duped us all. Or rather, the genius behind him/her has hoodwinked us all.
There is no way that the entity behind Pagophylus is the real McCoy. No flesh and blood being is capable of the insensitivity and cruelty that the entity Pagophylus easily demonstrates.
Clearly Pagophylus represents the cutting edge realization of a very advanced A.I. entity or program. The human designer or creator responsible for giving Pagophylus--an appropriate moniker for an A.I. entity--"life" can't be faulted as he/she endowed Pagophylus with a semblance of free will which in this instance has chosen to ostensibly opine with arguments and positions that belong to entities that by virtue of their nature are amoral and indelibly unfeeling, as well as inhuman.
I am impressed that this "advanced" A.I. entity felt that this Adventist forum was a good place as any to attempt to pass as a genuine, flesh and blood human being.
I, for one, was not convinced for very long. It's best to let the Pagophylus entity move on and visit other venues and attempt to pass for human there.
Beware of what appears to be human intelligence for in reality it is nothing of the sort.
Nice posts. Well-intentioned comments. Freedom of speech valued and respected. No doubt it's a worthwhile site notwithstanding its peculiar filters.
I had the pleasure of attending Adventist college with a friend whom others assumed was gay. My friend, I subsequently learned, was intersexual. Ostensibly a "true hermaphrodite," as conveyed to me by a mutual friend.
Needless to say, my friend thought it ill-advised to return to Adventist college, though deeply religious, and chose to live abroad, marry and adopt a child.
I've lost touch with my intersexual friend 25 years now. I wish my dear friend happiness wherever life has directed folk of a similar state.
I hope at some point warm and loving individuals like my friend can be integrated into society at large and Adventist fellowship as well.
Pyalie asked: "So we can assume you are a supporter of gender reassignment and reparative surgery? Or is one to remain "blind" their whole life?"
This is a good question. But is there a way to REALLY repare? This is another question to consider.
Anon7, the pain and trauma associated with such surgery is answer enough. If the individuals seeking resolution to their duplicities in such a way didn't really get anything from it, no one would have it done. So perhaps you should ask them...
---
1 Corinthians 13:13
I agree with the church's position on homosexuality, it is biblical. However, I do agree that when it comes to theology the church is always in need of revising the words that it uses to describe its' beliefs. But let that not be use as an excuse to find loopholes for what is biblical.
http://clearerperspective.wordpress.com/
Jerry, the church's position makes a universal declaration without admitting exceptions. You say you agree with that position but you do not say why. Everyone has opinions, it only gets interesting when the rationale behind the opinion is examined.
If you agree with the church's position - as it now stands - then I presume you also do not admit exceptions. So how then does the church's position work for the intersexed person? What is sin and what is not, for them? What you call loopholes affects thousands.
I am not advocating that all homosexuality is ok. But the church's position admits no exceptions and I am saying that, in light of the demonstrable fact of intersex, such a position is not supportable.
hopeful,
Sadly you are correct. That would be the dominating stance.
Raul Batista,
Our church moves very slowly. We are not fond of pro-activity. I do hope we can get things right soon.
I am not advocating that all homosexuality is ok. But the church's position admits no exceptions and I am saying that, in light of the demonstrable fact of intersex, such a position is not supportable.
Rich Hannon
So you want a legal wording? A document defined to perfection that considers all possible situations? Is that where you are going with this?
Michael
Michael: many within the church are quick to condemn all homosexuality and believe they are on very solid Biblical ground in doing so. My article is questioning the solidity of that ground. A simple - admit no exceptions - viewpoint is not warranted, I am arguing.
I wonder whether traditionalists will even bother to consider the argument against 'no exceptions' or whether they prefer to just blithely dismiss anything that doesn't square with their current understanding. To do that, I say, is to not really be Biblical. Rather it is just wrapping the Bible around a preferred position in order to give it legitimacy.
I wouldnt speak for anyone else but the word homosexuality has a specific meaning to me and I feel it might to others as well. When a term covers 99% of a category, when the category becomes a topic of discussion, it is only normal to assume that the person using the terminology is referring to the 99%.
That is probably why your statement, "many within the church are quick to condemn all homosexuality" is a bit problematic.
I think you made the case, as well as a couple of the posters, that an intersexed person is not nessisarily homosexual. On that basis alone your statement about "all homosexuality" is incorrect, since it is categorically different than what we all know to be classified as active homosexuality, the type you yourself say, "I am not advocating that all homosexuality is ok"
Perhaps you see these 2 things as mixed or 2 versions of the same thing while I see them as categorically different.
It would be good then to see how you would modify things to encompass your vision. Care to take a pass at a paragraph that conveys your sense of how it should be?
Michael
Michael, perhaps I am not understanding you correctly in what I read, above. So if I am not on target in this response please correct.
I'd like to understand where this 99% you speak of, came from? You seem to say that homosexuality proscribed by God is 99% of all homosexuality. That is an assumption you make but on what basis? A Biblical one?
What my article is trying to say is quite straightforward:
1) The church's position claims that all homosexuality is sinful in today's world.
2) It further assumes that homosexuality is considered categorically in the Bible - i.e. there are no exceptions.
3) But it also assumes that gender is well-defined in today's world.
4) However, the existence of intersexed people demonstrate that gender is not always unambiguously defined in today's world.
5) This means that the Bible's commentary on homosexuality is not really categorical, because the underlying assumption of unambiguous gender is not all inclusive.
6) The church, therefore, needs to admit an exception when it comes to intersexed people. Their situation is not covered in what the Bible speaks to.
7) If we recognize that Biblical silence does not necessarily mean that what is considered therein is categorical, then we have to ask to what extent should this principle also apply to homosexuality itself? That is, might there be a category of homosexuality to which the Bible is not speaking?
Now, the inverse of 'all' is not 'none'. So, if the above argument holds and exceptions are admitted, this doesn't mean all homosexuality is therefore ok. The inverse of 'all' is 'not all' or some. That some might be anywhere between 0% and 100%. I don't know what % would be true. All the above argument asserts is that it is not necessarily true that %100 of homosexuality is wrong.
If the church would wrestle only with this one conclusion, it would be a healthy thing IMO. It is the widely-held belief that the Bible categorically condemns homosexuality that I am saying is not warranted.
Let's consider the argument for validity, first. Rewriting the position statement can wait. And, because that statement is trying to categorically define sinful behavior in this arena, I'm not sure any such statement is achievable.
>>> the word homosexuality has a specific meaning to me
I'm guessing that it means "two people with external male genitalia engaging in anal intercourse".
If not, then what is your specific meaning?
If so, then where on the following spectrum does the sin "begin"
1 A person with external male genitalia and one with external female genitalia, who have signed a legally and religiously significant vow of a monogamous and respective relationship, engaging in a chaste kiss
2 Two persons with external male genitalia, who have signed a legally and religiously significant vow of a monogamous and respective relationship, engaging in a chaste kiss
3 Said persons engaging in a kiss involving tongue
4 Said persons using hands to touch clothing covering said genitalia
5 hands touching genitalia with a condom
6 mouth touching genitalia with a condom
7 mouth touching genitalia without a condom
8 anal intercourse
9 anal intercourse without the significant vow
9 anal intercourse with multiple partners over the course of a lifetime
10 anal intercourse with multiple partners over the course of an evening
/Bevin
"Throughout the whole animal kingdom we see male and female, not in-between or third genders."
Except for snails, which are hermaphroditic.
Or Clownfish, which are dichogamous - being born one sex, changing to the other.
Or Freemartin heifers, that have been masculinised in the womb.
Or Pigs with 5ARD, so are much prized in the Pacific Islands as they lack the "boar taint" in their meat.
Or... you get the idea. Tens of thousands of examples throughout the animal kingdom of Intersex.
In agrarian herding societies such as existed in the Middle East in Biblical times, the existence of Intersex was obvious. It could be seen in many animals. Matthew 19:12's first line wasn't stating something new, it was stating something so obvious everyone was aware of it, and then using that obvious fact as a launching point for further elucidation.
DSD is a neologism coined just to apply to humans, and many in these situations reject it. It's problematic because we don't call the CCR1 mutation responsible for red hair a "disorder of hair colour", no matter how badly the sufferer with it gets sunburnt when others don't. Many see themselves as just another biological variation, like being left-handed, or having red hair, or being colour-blind (which can enable them to see past certain camouflage patterns). The boundary between a natural variation and a disorder is ill-defined, though there are extremes we can pretty much all agree on.
As for me a nose by any other name would smell. Dr Milton Diamond proposes the retention of DSD as a term, but as "Difference of Sexual Development" rather than "Disorder". Personally, while some conditions could rationally be seen as mere variations with no significant effect, anything that compromises fertility, as most Intersex conditions do, could rationally be seen as a disorder, something undesirable, something awry. Others disagree with me on that, and can get quite defensive about it. Most Intersex groups prefer the term Intersex to DSD, as it puts us in context with the same biological situations found in animals. This discourages the idea that we ourselves are responsible for being born as we are, that we deserve all we get and more.
John 9 is apposite:
1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
My personal experience is that quite a few people react in the same way, either saying (as Virginia Rep Bob Marshall did last year) that we're being punished by God for the sins of our parents, or are somehow responsible for sins committed while still in the womb, or that our souls are naturally and intrinsically corrupt from conception.
The vast majority though think no such things. Society mirrors the comments here, with some both knowledgeable and compassionate, such as Dr MDB, some not so competent in either area, while the majority don't know too much but want to do whatever is right.
Thanks so much for the kind words that have been spoken about me. I'll try to live up to them, but please forgive me if I fail.
I was gone a few days and forgot to check on the responses. Sorry Rich,
I understand what your piece was about.
I am making inquiry on this quote.
"I am not advocating that all homosexuality is ok. But the church's position admits no exceptions and I am saying that, in light of the demonstrable fact of intersex, such a position is not supportable."
Rich Hannon
I think Zoe and Carlitas and you have made sufficient and compelling arguments why intersex is not necessarily homosexual. Especially Zoe's posts.
That would be one side of the coin. I most recently asked for clarification as to what the other side of your "coin" would look like. This question was raised to better understand where you said this, '"I am not advocating that all homosexuality is ok....."
Please provide examples of where you think homosexuality is OK and where it is not. This will help me see the whole intersex-homosexuality issue from your viewpoint.
At this point however I dont see it as you do in this area.
You say, 5) This means that the Bible's commentary on homosexuality is not really categorical, because the underlying assumption of unambiguous gender is not all inclusive."
As Zoe said, the body can morph (for lack of a better word) into a physical appearance that makes one look as the opposite of ones physical gender as well as mental gender or should I better say, self identity. To the extent that is can be treated or for inexplicable reasons, return to the original state, It is not homosexuality.
That is where you are incorrectly linking intersex with homosexuality.
I take the bible to mean homosexuality when it says homosexuality.
Intersex is categorically not exclusively homosexual as Zoe explained so well.
reference the post here
Zoe Brain - Fri, 12/30/2011 - 01:24
Michael
Michael:
There are two things going on here.
One is what I personally think about homosexuality. That is embodied in your question to me: “Please provide examples of where you think homosexuality is OK and where it is not.”
The second is whether the argument in my essay – that the church’s current position on homosexuality is not adequately grounded – is a successful argument or not.
They are not the same thing, of course. And the second one is the important one. What I personally think about homosexuality should be beside the point in considering the second issue. However, I will try to elaborate on both.
First, what I think. It seems to me that some same-sex attraction is biologically rooted. I have seen too many examples of people who declare that this is how they have always been and they are unable to change. Consequently this form of attraction, physiologically rooted, is not sinful. I don’t think such a condition existed originally, but it does now. And for people born this way, they cannot help themselves any more than I could turn away from being heterosexual. I also think there are people who are inherently heterosexual who, through sinful thoughts and then actions, have found homosexual activity to be exciting and thus desirable. Such people have perverted their desires from what originally was normal into what is, for them, abnormal. I also don’t know any way for a third party – such as the church - to judge between these two categories. But the main point is that people whose homosexuality is biologically rooted are not at fault for their inclinations. And it’s difficult for me to say that if two such people want to form a marriage-like union that physical intimacy should be denied to them by the church.
So my personal view leans on the strength of examples of real people who have declared they have always been this way and cannot change – and often have tried very hard. Some have even committed suicide because of distress and guilt. I ask myself how such people could get to that extreme a condition if they were just unwilling to reverse a perverted and sinful mindset.
And I realize I cannot prove this - from naturalistic evidence - any more than a strong proponent of all-homosexuality-is-sin can prove their position.
Second, concerning the argument I’ve provided – which is more important than my personal opinion. I laid it out succinctly, I thought, in the previous comment I made. The church’s position leans on the implicit assumption that homosexuality is undifferentiated. And since the Bible condemns homosexuality there are thus no exceptions to the condemnation. But the position concerning undifferentiation is an argument from silence. That is, since the Bible doesn’t explicitly discuss exceptions, there must not be any. I noted that this argument from silence also occurs in the Bible’s treatment of gender. That is, it assumes male and female, with no exceptions. However, we know that exceptions in gender do exist – intersexed people. Consequently it is an unwarranted assumption in the church’s position to assume that if the Bible doesn’t explicitly consider exceptions then no exceptions exist. I then ask whether it might be possible that exceptions also exist concerning homosexuality itself, and consequently whether the Bible’s condemnation should not necessarily be universal. I think it follows that the possibility of exceptions exists here also. However, whether they actually do or not is a stronger conclusion than the one I made in the article. What I said there is that the church’s position is not adequately proven.
Given the strength of belief in some parts of Christendom that homosexuality is categorically sinful I think the intersex problem undermines the solidity of this position. It doesn’t prove that there are some forms of homosexuality that are ok, but I contend that it disproves that the standard argument is valid.