More on the Guidance for Gender Transitioning Services

The Pastoral Guidance issued by the House of Bishops for parishes planning services to help trans people mark their transition has been give a response in an open letter asking the House  to revise, postpone or withdraw this guidance until significant concerns have been properly addressed. This letter in turn has received an angry response by some with the agreement of the Bishop of Liverpool among others. These may be signs that the plea to listen will fall on deaf ears but a more measured response came from the Revd Dr Tina Beardsley, retired healthcare Chaplain, researcher and co-author of This is My Body and Transfaith. Her response makes me want to underline a few things and make a note of a few questions in the hope of developing my own understanding if no-one else’s.

First, it seems to me that the Open Letter never speaks of trans people because it does not seek to speak about people; it speaks to a Guidance which commends the unqualified celebration of a process. There is of course a relationship between trans people and the process of gender transition but the Letter questions the assumption that the only way to welcome trans people is to celebrate their gender transition liturgically – and to do so in every case.

Secondly, if the Guidance had merely cautioned against dead-naming and mis-gendering people, it would not have caused this Response. There is a difference between welcoming people, using their preferred names and pronouns, and offering a liturgical stamp of approval on gender transition. The former we can do while remaining agnostic about any specific transitioning process, the latter demands that we make a (positive) judgement on the process which in turn requires an agreed understanding of what gender transition is and why it is always something to be celebrated. Hence the call for serious theological analysis.

Thirdly, Tina Beardsley queries the focus on gender dysphoria, observing that the trans experience is broader. The reason for this focus on gender dysphoria lies in the fact that the Guidance specifically speaks of celebrating gender transition. This appears to assume that someone has received a gender recognition certificate which at present, here in England, is only possible after a diagnosis of gender dysphoria or after sex reassignment surgery. The latter also falls in the category of gender dysphoria, understood, with the American Psychiatric Association,  as “a conflict between a person’s physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/they identify.” It is not clear that the Guidance issued by the House of Bishops is meant to apply to gender nonconformity as distinct from gender transitioning that seeks to resolve a mismatch (gender dysphoria), whether the mismatch had been experienced as distressing or not.

Fourthly, if being trans means to understand, feel, and identify oneself as having a gender mentality that conflicts with the sexual characteristics of one’s body and with the gender which society stereotypically attributes to people with those sexual characteristics, trans identity has a long history. Nevertheless there have been significant developments in the 20th century which change the context and raise new questions (see below) and there have been new developments in recent years in relation to pre-pubescent children which raise new concerns (Peter Ould makes reference to these in his comment).

Fifthly, the last few decades have seen a noticeable move away from gender stereotyping among many, even though elements of sexism and rigidity about gender roles remain. At the same time our ability to make someone’s body conform, to some extent, to their dissonant gender mentality has increased. This means that today the process of gender transitioning, in particular connected with sex reassignment surgery, often tends to affirm and reinforce gender stereotypes, when in the past a lived trans identity more commonly undermined gender assumptions and stereotypes. This is an issue that concerns society as a whole, not just individuals.

Sixthly, the new possibilities for manipulating our bodies raise afresh questions about how we think of our bodies theologically, especially given that the conflict between gender mentality and sexual characteristics is no longer considered a mental health issue.[1] Tina Beardsley points out that “the therapeutic consensus today is that being trans is a human variation, not a pathology” but in those cases were being trans leads to medical intervention[2] it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it is a health issue. If it is not a mental health issue, should the dis-ease be located in the body? Should we think of the body of a trans person as “disabled” or “ill” until it is (to some extent) healed by sex reassignment surgery?

Finally, to affirm gender transitions liturgically seems to grant an ontological reality to “gender” as something separate from biological sex. This raises the questions about how we are to think about gender which have not yet been really addressed by the church.  Are we to assume that our souls are gendered in the way our bodies are sexed? Is there a difference between self and soul? Is dissonance always essentially about what it means to be “male” or “female” or is “gender” in some cases unrelated to “male” and “feamle”?

We do not need answers to these questions in order to welcome trans people, using their preferred names and pronouns. It is the recommendation of liturgy which in affirming gender transitions makes certain assumptions which demands that such questions are addressed.

---

[1] Mental health problems still carry a stigma which is why many are keen to avoid any suggestion that gender dysphoria is a mental health issue.

[2] I recognise that the desire to make one’s body conform to one’s gender identity is not universal among trans people. It is however one of the contexts of the Guidance and the Guidance does not distinguish between gender transitions with and without sex reassignment surgery.

Affirming Gender Transition and Baptismal Faith

In a previous post I expressed unease about offering a divine stamp of approval on a person’s gender transition as a means of welcoming and affirming trans people.

Chris Newlands introduced the General Synod motion which called on the House of Bishops of the Church of England “to consider whether some nationally commended liturgical materials might be prepared to mark a person’s gender transition” with a story about someone who approached him wanting a liturgical rite akin to baptism, because they were not sure that God knew them under their new gender identity.* This is arguably a clear case of the cruelty of heresy. We want to reassure this person but doing so by means of such a rite runs the risk of reinforcing the heresy rather than refuting it, suggesting that the person really did need to be re-introduced to God.

Nevertheless, the House of Bishops responded by commending the liturgy for the Affirmation of Baptismal Vows as “an ideal liturgical rite which trans people can use to mark this moment of personal renewal” (GS Misc 1178). Such re-purposing of a rite that relates to Christian Initiation is apparently thought appropriate on the grounds that baptism is a suitable moment to celebrate our unity in diversity and has something to do with personal renewal and with being welcomed and affirmed by God and the church. But the mixture introduces several tensions. 

First of all, baptism stresses our unity in Christ irrespective of gender or ethnic distinctions or social class. It seems therefore problematic to highlight gender at this moment by affirming a person precisely with regard to their gender identity. The same applies for the Affirmation of Baptismal Vows. (Note that the church is not given guidance for celebrating a Baptism, an Affirmation of Baptismal Vows, or a Marriage service when one of the parties involved is a trans person but guidance for liturgically marking a person’s gender transition.)

The Guidance tries hard to maintain the integrity of the existing rite but it is difficult to amalgamate celebration of (acquired) gender identity with our identity in Christ without corrupting the rite. It may be possible to minimise this when such an Affirmation is made alongside other candidates in a main service but it will be maximised where a service is centred around the trans person whose affirmation is the reason for the rite being celebrated in this time and place.

Secondly, the Affirmation of Baptismal Vows is “intended for those who are already baptized and confirmed and who, after preparation and instruction, come to make a public act of commitment” (from the current rubrics). For a committed Christian “to re-dedicate their life and identity to Christ” in the context of gender transition raises questions about their dedication to Christ prior to this “serious and lasting change.” Is a service of re-turning to Christ really the most appropriate for those who have gone through the gender transition in close fellowship with Chris? And even if the re-dedication is not seen as a re-turning, does it nevertheless drive too much a wedge between before and after in terms of the person's discipleship?

And has the House of Bishop considered the possibility that people who have no Christian commitment may approach the church with a request for a service of celebrating their gender transition in the same way that some couples without Christian commitment approach the church for a marriage service? While this may be an opportunity to encourage people to explore the Christian faith, it would surely prove hard for them to do so in the right spirit if the question whether or not they can have a gender transition celebration service hangs on their decision to commit to Christ in a much more explicit, focused way than in a marriage service.

It is noteworthy that, departing from GS Misc 1178 as well as from the original rubrics, the new Guidance explicitly makes the service available to those who have not been confirmed with no expectation that confirmation would necessarily follow in due course. It also remains silent on the need for “preparation and instruction” prior to the public act of commitment. This makes it look as if the aspect of the liturgy which is to do with (understanding and) affirming the Christian faith very much takes second place to the affirmation of the gender transition.

Thirdly, baptism presumes a journey, a history of before and after. This may at first make it especially suitable for marking a gender transition which also knows a before and after. But the question is if and how the two transitions (from slavery to freedom on the one hand, from one gender to another on the other) are related. Is it possible, even necessary, in celebrating such a rite to equate living in the previous gender identity with living in rebellion to God, in darkness and in slavery? The implied answer seems to be: “The minister should be guided by the wishes of the candidate regarding the way in which past experiences may be mentioned or reflected upon.” But such matters are never private and personal in a way that does not impact on others because the rite, maybe reinforced by the trans person’s testimony, could well communicate to others in the congregation who are ill at ease with their identity that they are living in rebellion to God and need to repent.

The potential impact of the service on those who belong to the trans person’s history needs to be taken into account as well. “If members of their family are to be present, the minister will wish to be sensitive to their pastoral needs.” Indeed, especially if a gender transition is intimately related to the breakdown of a marriage or in other ways has profoundly altered relationships. This may prove difficult to do. The desire to affirm the trans person and the celebratory tone of the rite may well drive away any notion of sin on the part of the trans person although even the weakened, alternative form of the Decision still asks the candidate “Do you repent of your sins?”

A liturgy of thanksgiving for having successfully managed a gender transition or a thanksgiving service for the gift of an external gender presentation that corresponds to one’s internal gender perception would have posed much the same theological questions that were raised in the previous post but it would have avoided the issues raised here. Did the House of Bishops shrink back from devising a new liturgy in the belief that a service for marking gender transition would be more readily accepted if its existence was only acknowledged in the rubrics? Or were they genuinely excited about the Affirmation of Baptismal Vows as “an ideal liturgical rite” for marking a gender transition. unaware of the theological and pastoral issues this might raise for at least some clergy?

* Source: Ian Paul, On welcoming transgender people

Gender Transition and Implied Narratives

There is some weird as well as wonderful material in Common Worship, the collection of the Church of England’s provision of contemporary language services. But I am not aware of anything within it that clearly teaches something which I do not believe. This may be about to change, making for interesting times. I refer to the Pastoral Guidance for use in conjunction with the Affirmation of Baptismal Faith in the context of gender transition which is new guidance for parishes planning services to help transgender people mark their transition (see press release). So what is the story?

While not all gender nonconformity is rooted in gender dysphoria, gender transition is often painful and persons going through the process are in extra need of support. For those who have contact to their local church, it would be a huge thing to have their transition, their acquired gender and their new name recognised and affirmed by the church in a way that says “you are safe, you are welcome, we love you for who you are, and as God’s community we stand by you in your isolation and vulnerability” (using the words of one such person).

Questions for the church are (1) Can we “unconditionally affirm” trans persons in the sense of loving them as they are without communicating that they are only welcome and included if their gender identity conforms to their biological sex but without explicitly affirming the transition itself? 

(2) If it is not possible to affirm trans persons without affirming transition processes, does the church have the authority for claiming God’s approval of gender transition itself? 

(3) If the church can be confident in speaking on God’s behalf into such situations, can we offer the divine stamp of approval on every gender transition or would the church need to exercise discretion and distinguish between right and wrong transitions?

I see at least three alternative stories that one could tell: (1) Gender is related to biological sex and gender nonconformity is the result of confusion, rebellion or illness. Trans persons are to be loved and affirmed as persons but their nonconformity is not to be encouraged and is potentially a problem. This first narrative is painful for trans people but this does not prove that it is wrong. Some Christians believe that this is the story told in Scripture.

Deuteronomy 22:5 deals with the issue of cross-dressing, women presenting themselves as men and vice versa. The use of the phrase “abomination to the Lord your God” signals that this cannot be readily dismissed as irrelevant to the church.

The situation with eunuchs is different. Deuteronomy 23:1 prohibits men with crushed or severed genitals to enter the assembly of the Lord but does not use the word translated “abomination” and Isaiah 53:3-5 envisages the acceptance of eunuchs. The law is presumably meant to discourage the practice, while the promise affirms that this does not mean that eunuchs themselves are rejected by God. Jesus, in Matthew 19:12, differentiates between different types of castrated males: those who are eunuchs due to birth, those who become eunuchs because of social and political obligations, and those who voluntarily become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom.

The de-sexing of a eunuch is, however, arguably not the same as transitioning to a different gender and gender nonconformity is not the same as transvestism. The plausibility and truthfulness of this first narrative must but also deserves to be examined.

Another narrative: (2) Gender is a fluid concept at the interface of an individual’s identity and role expectations within society, loosely related to biological sex. The church has no mandate to validate gender stereotypes in general or specific identifications of individuals and welcomes all regardless of their gender or other identities and without making anything of those identities.

This ‘agnostic’ narrative has the advantage of making no controversial claims about gender which are difficult to justify. It is tolerant but it may be considered insufficient given that for many gender is a decisive aspect of their identity and especially so for trans people. Some Christians are in fact more confident about identifying male and female roles in Scripture but even if passages such as Ephesians 5:22-32 are read as role defining rather than encouraging Christians to live out existing roles in a certain way, they would not define the roles of men and women in general but specifically of husbands and wives. In my view, there is little about gender, separate from biological sex, within the Bible and one would need to turn to tradition or science for establishing gender roles.

The Guidance arguably binds the conscience of clergy to a third narrative, something like this: (3) Our souls (or minds?) are gendered in the same way that our bodies are sexed. Where there is incongruity between the gender of the soul and the sex of the body, it is the gender of the soul that should be affirmed and validated by the Church.

The rationale for this is presumably the conviction that it is impossible to welcome and affirm trans people without validating their self-identification. There do not seem to be any criteria for establishing someone’s gender objectively which would allow us to speak, e.g., of a female brain in a chromosomal male body. Consequently the Guidance must assume that every individual’s self-identification is true and healthy, given that a divine stamp of approval could hardly be given to something untrue or unhealthy.

This raises a number of questions in relation to anthropology and eschatology:

What is gender? Does the Guidance assume that there are typical ways of being a man or a woman which are independent of our biological sex, gender stereotypes which we endorse by validating someone’s claim to have discovered their true gender?

If so, are our souls gendered in the same way that our bodies are sexed?

If so, is congruity between the gender of the soul and the sex of the body desirable?

If so, should we encourage sex reassignment surgery and proclaim that a person’s resurrection body will correspond to the gender of their soul?

Are the options binary? The Guidance only speak of male-to-female and female-to-male transitions. It is not clear whether intergender, agender, demigender, genderfluid, pangender or culturally defined "third gender" identities are also to be affirmed.

I am concerned about being tied to a particular story (a) without any justification for preferring this narrative over others and (b) without any exploration of the impact that accepting this story has on other areas of our belief. This is without even talking about the use of the Reaffirmation of Baptismal Vows in this context which for both theological and pastoral reasons I consider inappropriate in any case.

On a minor point, I note that Canon Law proscribes that a child brought to baptism must have at least one godparent of the same sex as the child and one of the opposite sex. I would assume that this must still be read as referring to biological sex but this could lead to intrusive questioning or to a situation in which a child has three godfathers or three godmothers. It would be useful to clarify what is and is not desirable and legal in this case.

Postscript: Matthew Lee Anderson offers a critique in Baptizing the Spirit of the Age in which he observes:

At the heart of the guidance is a prioritization of the “pastoral,” which effectively cordons the ceremony off from meaningful theological reflection. This leaves the guidance grossly underdetermined, reducing priests to cheerleaders for those on their way to a new sex.

Martin Davie, The House of Bishops and Transgender: Fifteen Wasted Years, castigates the House of Bishops for failing to answer key questions which had been raised in  Some Issues in Human Sexuality, the discussion document the House published in 2003, and for failing to offer an adequate theological justification for the position the House adopted then or now.