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.
