Theology in the Raw - S8 Ep886: Sex, Gender, and the Anthropology of Trans* Identities: Dr. Abigail Favale

Episode Date: July 22, 2021

Abigail and I talk about all things related to gender, postmodern feminism, and the ontology of trans* identities. We discuss the meaning of sex and gender, the relationship between body and soul, the possibility of an intersex condition of the brain, whether brains are male and female, intersex conditions, gender stereotypes, and how all of this relatest to the anthropological understnading of trans* experiences.  Dr. Favale is dean of the College of Humanities and Associate Professor of English at George Fox University. She graduated from George Fox University with a philosophy degree in 2005, and went on to complete her doctorate at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, where her dissertation was granted the Samuel Rutherford Prize for the most distinguished thesis in English literature.  Dr. Favale is an active writer in multiple genres. Her literary criticism has appeared in various academic journals and essay collections. In 2017, she was awarded the J.F. Powers Prize for Short Fiction. A lifelong Christian, Favale entered the Catholic Church in 2014, and her memoir about this transition, Into the Deep, is forthcoming from Cascade Books. Dr. Favale’s first book, Irigaray, Incarnation and Contemporary Women’s Fiction(Bloomsbury 2013), examines religious themes in the work of contemporary women novelists. This book was awarded the 2014 Feminist and Women's Studies Association Book Prize. Abigail has also written short fiction for several literary journals, such as The Potomac Review, Talking River Review, zaum and  Melusine. In 2013, Abigail was a regular online contributor on gender-related issues for The Atlantic  Monthly; her essays have also appeared in First Things, PopMatters and Geez Magazine. Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com Venmo: @Preston-Sprinkle-1 Connect with Preston Twitter | @PrestonSprinkle Instagram | @preston.sprinkle Youtube | Preston Sprinkle Check out his website prestonsprinkle.com If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review.

Hello, friends. You are in for a treat. I have on the show today the one and only Dr. Abigail Favali, who is the Dean of the College of Humanities at George Fox University. She's also an Associate Professor of English, and she used to be in charge of the Honors Program at George Fox University, which is a very prestigious and rigorous program over there at George Fox in Oregon. Her first book is titled, I'm going to butcher this, Irigaray Incarnation in Contemporary Women's Fiction, which was published in 2013. And this book was awarded the 2014 Feminist and Women's Studies Association Book Prize. Abigail has an interesting story. PhD from St. Andrews,

went full on into what she would call postmodern feminism, had a faith crisis, and ended up being converted to Catholicism. And she is now a faithful Catholic Christian and an amazing thinker. I had a, I mean, as I say at the end, well, I don't know if I said it online, maybe I said it offline, that this conversation I felt like was maybe more for me than anybody. to trans approaches to Christian anthropology, sexed soul theories and brain sexed theories and masculinity and femininity. And I know some of those words might make sense to you. Hopefully some of you are interested in some of the things we talk about. We do try to keep it somewhat down to earth, but we do get pretty deep on some of these topics.

So at the end of the conversation, I'm just like, man, I hope people benefit from this. For me, this was just a stimulating conversation. And I hope you benefit from it as well. We dig into, yeah, the meaning of sex and gender and various other things that kind of flow from that. So I haven't known, I haven't talked to Abigail before this episode. This was kind of us getting to know each other. And I, man, she's super awesome. So, so excited for you to engage this conversation. If you would like to support the show, you can go to patreon.com forward slash TheologyNarrah. All the info is in the show notes. Please consider leaving a review of this podcast, good or bad. If you think it's just terrible, then leave a one-star review. And if you think it's awesome, leave a five-star review.

Hopefully you're challenged and blessed by this podcast. Thank you to all of my Patreon supporters who are continually supporting the work that we're doing through this podcast. So without further ado, let's get to know the one a new friend, Abigail Favale, or Favale, if I can. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's my, yeah, that's the extent of my Italian accent. Or favale, if I can. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's the extent of my Italian accent.

Abigail, we have a mutual friend, Lance Teal, who two of his kids have gone through your school. And I think you taught them personally, right? Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah, definitely. Two brilliant kids. Lance is a hoot. Hello, Lance.

A little shout out to Lance if you're listening. But yeah, he connected us and said, Lance. A little shout out to Lance if you're listening. But yeah, he connected us and said, hey, you got to talk to Abigail because Abigail's been like researching and thinking through gender theory type stuff for a long time. And that obviously intersects the work that I've been doing more recently. So thanks so much for being on the show. I'm so stoked to talk to you. Yeah, thanks for having me. So why don't we just give a background of who you are? Because you have a really interesting, very unique kind of academic slash spiritual journey. And it really does make a difference to understand that as we dive into questions about gender theory. So yeah, tell us a bit about that interesting background. Yeah, I'll give you a brief sketch. And then if you're, if you want to dive into any part of it in more depth, just let me know. But yeah, so I'm actually an Idaho native.

So I was born in McCall and I mainly grew up in Utah and Eastern Idaho in the Mormon belt. And I was raised evangelical, an evangelical Christian. And I went to George Fox where I currently teach and I'm the Dean of Humanities here. And when I was in college, I got really interested in feminism. So feminist philosophy and feminist theology. I was a philosophy major. And then after college, I went on into graduate school in literary studies, but I was focusing on feminist theory and literary studies and gender theory. So I have a master's degree in women's writing and gender theory. And then my, my doctorate focused on feminist theory and literature, women's literature. So, um, for about a decade in my twenties, I was really immersed in this world that I guess I usually call postmodern feminism. It's hard to label. But feminism and gender theory had pretty much kind of become my religion. And I had,

even though I still considered myself a Christian, I had really adopted the worldview that's implicit in a lot of those theories without necessarily consciously realizing it. And eventually that led to a faith crisis at the end of my twenties. And I really suddenly became Catholic. So I've been Catholic now for about seven years. And that really totally shifted my worldview. And for the first couple of years, I thought, oh my gosh, I've wasted my education. How can I somehow reconcile all this decade-long immersion in feminist and gender theory with my new Catholic Christian worldview? But once the dust settled, I began to realize that it was an asset to have this kind of insider knowledge and then to be able to really

think deeply about gender and sexuality from a Catholic perspective, but also with a knowledgeable insight of the kind of secular discourse on those topics. So that's where I'm at now. I've written quite a few essays on that. I have a book coming out with Ignatius Press on gender that does kind of a deep dive on this stuff. And that'll be out in the spring. So, yeah. Next spring. Okay. Oh, my gosh.

I would love to get a hold of that. Okay. I'll get you an advanced copy. Awesome. So when you say postmodern feminism, I mean, the big name that comes to my mind is like Judy Butler. Is she kind of like the godmother of all of that? Or is she just more, the more popular ones? Um, I always think like, she seems like the Michelle Foucault of like postmodern gender stuff. Is that, is that accurate or? Yeah, absolutely. So yeah, I call her like the fairy godmother of gender

theory basically. And, um, so so I was more I was familiar with Butler, because if you're doing gender theory at all, you just you read Butler, she's she's the the canon really is kind of rooted in her stuff. So but I was really more interested in French feminist theory. So I read Butler, but, you know, I wasn't totally on board with all of what she thought. But yeah, so I guess in saying postmodern feminism, what I mean by postmodernism is a belief that our reality is shaped by language and our reality is socially constructed. Right. So I held on to this belief that somewhere out there, there's some kind of divine reality, but we can't really have access to it, right? So for me, it was not a reality that actually speaks to us, that reaches down to reveal himself to us, right? It was just cut off. And so all we have are our own words and stories to try to imagine or, um, access that divine reality that was always out of reach.

Um, so I wasn't as radically socially constructivist as say Butler, but I definitely had absorbed that, that view that truth, maybe it exists, but it's ultimately unknowable. And so all we really have are the stories we tell ourselves and, um, our world. So truth, what we think of as truth, what we think of as reality, what we think of as gender, all these things are ultimately constructs of language and they can be reshaped. Do you see, I mean, as you're talking, I'm thinking that sounds like about 80% of young people I talk to today who have never even heard of Judy Butler. 80% of young people I talk to today who have never even heard of Judy Butler. Yeah.

I guess my question is, are the popular versions of that kind of way more academic, intellectual way of thinking, do you see that? Has that kind of trickled down and embedded itself in just the popular mindset of many people today? If that's the right way to ask? Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. I think, yeah, that's exactly the phrase I tend to use, like trickle down Judith Butler. So most people will have, or will use language that reflects this worldview, um, even without ever having read Judith Butler or Michel Foucault, but their, their understanding of reality, um, of basically that reality is, and what we think of as truth, is a matter of power, right? So who has social power creates reality and uses language in such a way that shapes our understanding of reality. And so there's something that's true about that, right? So I think our perception

of reality is very profoundly shaped by language. But what I think that Butler and Foucault don't is that reality pushes back. So our language can be out of step with reality, right? So there actually is a real, there's a reality that we have to reckon with. So it's not just completely arbitrary. So that's, but yet there is. So I think there's something very, very important that we need to think about in terms of how we use language. And I think a lot of young people that I speak with, they just kind of adopt the popular lingo, right, that you see on social media or in whatever social circles that they're a part of. And what they often aren't aware of is what worldview is being imported in that language. And that is actually shaping their understanding of reality,

maybe without them being consciously aware of it. Yeah, yeah. No, that's super helpful. I, just as you're talking, a few years ago, I read for the first time, embarrassingly, 1984 by George Orwell. And just how, yeah, recreating reality by just coming up with new terms or, you know, or just changing the past by current language almost, you know, and you see, I don't know,

like, and I'm always nervous about people giving sweeping statements or we're facing this dystopian, you know, apocalypse, whatever. But man, it was a little eerie. Like a lot of the stuff I read in that book, I'm like, gosh, I see that happening a lot today, just in how people will project their worldview or their ideology or what the way they want to see reality by using certain terms. And it's like, well, that's not what that word mean. Or, you know, like you're, you're, you're're you're using that term a certain way but it's just not i don't know it's just like it doesn't all like reflect reality or at least i don't know it's it's tricky yeah and i think that's why there's so especially when it comes to the realm of gender

there's so there's so many battles over language right and it's because that i and this is not i think maybe there are some activists who are really conscious of what they're doing, right? That they are really consciously trying to reshape our understanding of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. But I think there are a lot of people who are just acting at goodwill and they think, oh, this is now the loving way to speak. But I think the reason there is so much attention on pronouns and language and labels and names is because there is this attempt to manipulate pretty concrete realities and facts about biology and bodies, but to take this discussion out of the realm of the body and make it about language. Yeah. Well, okay. So let's dive in there. I'm just itching to dive into this conversation with you.

Because for me, I've been wrestling with gender within the context of the trans conversation for a while now. And I feel like half of what I try to do is very pastoral and relational. The other half is really trying to break down and understand concepts. And I've just never been one to want to separate those two. I think understanding the concepts well helps you to love people more thoroughly. And people that have just been unloving people, they're like, oh, don't give me all this philosophical stuff. I'm like, but you're going to – there's that book, When Helping Hurts.

You may try to be helping people, but if you really don't understand the concepts, you can't really do that well. So I've been trying to merge the conceptual and relational aspects of the conversation together. And part of that, it's like you can't even, you can get hung up on just the meaning of sex and gender. And few people I know can even get past that. So we know in common parlance today, the term gender is different than sex. We've separated sex and gender. Sex is biological sex. There's little credible debate about that, I think. We can get into intersex, but let's just leave aside, for those who don't have an intersex condition, male and female are the two categories of biological sex. Homo sapiens are a sexually dimorphic species. These are not debated.

They're not debated by anybody you'd want operating on you in the ER. Although everything's in a sense debated. And since the 70s, people will say, well, that's sex, but gender is different than sex. Okay, cool. What's gender? since the 70s people will say well that's sex but gender is different than sex okay cool what's gender and that's where the discussion pretty much just gets a lot gets stuck this this if we're going to separate the term sex from gender and then what is the definition of gender and can you use that in a way that's very consistent as you reflect on what it means to be human? And I honestly have read so... Your essay that you sent me is one of the clearest articulations of this whole thing that I've ever read, which is why I'm so stoked to have you on.

So anyway, I have so many questions. I don't know how to boil it down. How do you define gender in distinction from sex? Let's start there. in the social sciences and humanities in the academy and it, and in feminist theory, and it began to take this meaning. So you have biological sex, but then you also have cultural expressions of biological sex. And those, those expressions can vary from culture to culture, from historical period to historical period. Right. So, you know, for example, right now, like I have long hair, you have short hair, right? It's not because my hair grows longer because I'm a female, right? But, you know, we're kind of reflecting some of the cultural expressions of what it means to be male and female. And so feminist theory kind of caught onto this idea and what's called the sex gender split. So gender refers to those social and

cultural baggage, basically, that's applied to biological sex. And there's something that's helpful in that distinction because, like I said, there's some truth to that. But I think ultimately using two different terms to separate those two things has led to where we are now where the gender has become almost totally detached from sex. Right. So here's another definition of gender. where the gender has become almost totally detached from sex, right? So here's another definition of gender. So you'll often hear this maybe in trans narratives or trans activists that gender is or gender identity is this innate sense of one's gender, right? Now, first of all, that's a circular definition. So that's a problem.

one's gender, right? Now, first of all, that's a circular definition. So that's a problem. But leaving that aside, it's almost like this, it's this disembodied kind of state of the psyche or the soul, right? So if you, if you feel like you're a woman, then that is your gender, your gender is a woman. So there's almost this essentialist narrative there. And then there's the more Butler attitude. So Butler would not be essentialist. Like she would reject this idea that your soul is gendered or the idea of a soul at all. So for her, gender is purely a social script that we unconsciously enact and perform that creates the illusion of something essential. So, yeah. So for her, it's a complete social construct.

So those are three very different meanings, right? And one interesting development that I think has happened since Butler is, so say like second wave feminist theory, sex is biological, gender is cultural. And for Butler, she also said, no, sex itself is a social construct. The idea of sex is also socially constructed. And you see that language now all over the place. This is an example of trickle-down Butler, where you have people talking about, well, what was your assigned sex at birth, right? So using the word assigned makes it seem like it's this social, like arbitrary social imposition that you're assigned a sex at birth rather than your sex is recognized at birth. So that's one reason why it's really hard to talk

about gender because you have people using a term that means very different things, right? So, and some of them are almost opposite meanings, right? The idea of gender being this kind of state of the psyche or the soul versus gender being a complete social construction, those are pretty hard to reconcile. So that's part of why there's so much confusion. And I do think that the confusion originated once you separate the idea of gender from the body, right? Because the body is a very concrete, material, factual entity. Like you just, it has some givens to it, right? But as soon as you detach what it means to be a man and a woman from sex, Then gender begins to take on these very different kinds of meanings.

And it's constantly shifting meaning. It's like this postmodern juggernaut of a word that's just constantly changing. Well, one thing I've done frequently, it's actually kind of entertaining. It also can be a little frustrating. But when I read books by really smart people, people who I may even resonate with, when they define, they often, sex is different than gender, then they say gender means, and they'll give the definitions, internal sense of oneself as male, female, both or neither. Then you have gender roles, gender expression, which typically, cultural expressions of masculinity,

family, they'll give the definitions up front. But then the rest of the book, what I do mentally, or sometimes if I'm bored enough, I'll write it in. Every time they use the word gender after that, I'll cross it out and I'll put in their definition. It's hilarious.

It's like one's internal sense of gender. Like you said, okay, so one's internal sense of one's internal sense. Well, that's like putting two mirrors opposite each other. It's like, where does that end? One's internal sense of one's, you know,, that's like putting two mirrors opposite each other. It's like, where does that end? One's internal sense and one's, you know.

Or even like they're assigned gender at birth. It's like, well, no, I think you mean assigned sex. No doctor in the history of medicine ever says, congratulations, it's a masculine, you know. Congratulations, the internal sense of your kid is this. You know, so part of the confusion, and I think it's not just an academic confusion or whatever. I think it actually ends up trickling down and confusing and ultimately hurting people, I think, is when gender is separated from sex. But then when it's convenient, you will use gender in this kind of ghost-like, you'll borrow ontological categories from sex without even.

Yes. Like, you know, even like, so like, so we, Homo sapiens are sexually dimorphic. That's earth is round and not flat fact. And male, so we need terms to describe that sexually dimorphic. That's earth is round and not flat fact. And male, so we need terms to describe that sexual dimorphism. Male and female are pretty widely accepted. Let's just stick with those. Right.

And then people will say, well, sex is different than gender. Okay. I can, I can appreciate a lot of, of, of that distinction, but then don't use male and female when you're talking about gender.

Right. Right. Right. Is that legit? Am I missing something there? Like once you separate the two and start swapping categories out, then that gets really confusing. Right. It doesn't work. Like separating them out doesn't work.

Right. you know, if you say, um, you know, my, my gender is, or gender is one's internal sense of say, being a woman. Well then what, what's the, what's the word woman there? Like define that for me, right? Because if your gender is contingent upon that, that category existing, like that's something you're identifying as, or you feel that you are. Well, what is that, right? And then eventually, it always comes back to, well, a woman is an adult human female, right? And what does it mean to have a sense of oneself as a female? Because male and female, these are reproductive terms. These are bodily terms. So it doesn't make sense to have this completely disembodied definition, but you're

exactly right. There's so much slippage and confusion of terms. And, um, I see it all the time. I mean, I see it even in just things like HR training, you know, these HR compliance training things you have to take. And I I'll actually like take like screenshots, you know, and text them to people like, what is going on? Um, but yeah, there, and the last one that I took, there was something where they define sex and gender. They offer these definitions and then they proceed to not even use the definitions that they gave correctly. It's, you know, there's just, yeah, it drives me nuts. It's very imprecise, very confusing. And then it just, I think it leads to so much confusion because even the people who are supposed to know what they're doing, don't know what they're doing. And then, so of course, you

know, you've just got, you know, you've got people in a real stage of life where they're trying to figure out who they are and they never feel like they fit quite in there in the right box. And so they, they latch onto this language and then it kind of just blows open the idea of identity altogether. And I think it wreaks a lot of havoc. these kind of older, sexist, culturally driven stereotypes are implicitly being resurrected and given a real foundational lens through which we consider what it means to be human, very implicitly, not consciously, I don't think, maybe, with a lot of this slippage of terminology. So if somebody says, you know, biologically, I'm a, I'm male. Okay. That's, um, but my, the internal sense of myself is, is, is female. Um,

and if you were to ask, like, what is that? How do you know that? What do you mean? Like, explain to me what that looks like without tapping into gender, these stereotypes, it's kind of almost, it's kind of hard to do it. And I'm absolutely not like, this is not, I'm thinking on a conceptual level right now. So this wouldn't be my pastoral approach because people are just trying to figure out oftentimes dysphoria or just, there's so much relational stuff here that would need to be worked out. But just on a conceptual level, if somebody says, well, I feel or my internal sense is a woman, that very idea has disconnected the concept of woman from a body. And I think it inevitably has to rely on stereotypes of what it means to be a woman. Because if you explain what that internal sense looks like, it's just – I don't know.

I've never seen anybody do that without tapping into stereotypes. Anyway, I'm talking too much. This is me thinking out loud or asking a question out loud. Am I missing something? Is that – Yeah, I think if the ground of manhood and womanhood is not the body, then there's no other ground except stereotypes. And that's an irony that I see in this new wave of trans-inclusive feminism is that it's actually incredibly regressive when it comes to stereotypes. kind of politically correct thing to do is to look at, say, a little boy who loves to play with my little ponies and think, oh, maybe he's really a girl, you know? And so that whatever like feminist credentials I still have, I'm like, whoa, whoa, whoa. Okay. So first of all, playing with my

little ponies is, does not make you a girl, right? Like there are plenty of girls that are gender atypical. There are plenty of boys that are gender atypical. Most people are pretty complex and there are very few people who fit these, these really narrow, um, stereotypes that are of idealized masculinity and femininity. But what's interesting is that this new, this new wave of, of gender has a very regressive, um, definition of manhood and womanhood. So now, you know, if you don't comply, um, with traditional femininity, then, oh my gosh, you might really be a man. Right. And that's, um, yeah. And sometimes, you know, sometimes I'll talk to, um, folks who are more conservative and who are worried about this, like say my dad, you know,

and he'll say something, he's like, Ooh, you know, you gotta make sure to dress your girls in pink and your boys in blue. And I'm like, I'm thinking like, dad, that's part of the problem, right? I mean, this is, that's almost just a mirror image of what's going on. In fact, like we shouldn't be color coding our kids, like, you know, let them. And that's what's, that's one thing that I love about if we really root the idea of gender in the body, it's actually very freeing. Right. I can have a wide range of interests as a woman.

I can be really into sports if I want to. I can also, you know, be really into, you know, watching the bachelor or whatever. Like both those things can be true. And it's not as though I'm like, oh, I'm playing basketball. I'm a man right now, you know, or I'm like digging a hole, like, oh, I'm suddenly a man, you know, it doesn't make any sense. And, and then like, oh, I'm cooking. Like I'm now a woman that just, you know, it really doesn't make any sense. But if we root, if, if my femininity is basically the living out of my sex, then anything that I do is a feminine task or a feminine action, right?

Like, because it's the body, it's the person that brings that kind of, um, that accent to things that are, that are masculine and feminine. Um, yeah. I, we don't need to just keep agreeing with each other, but I just can't tell you how much I, this is helpful because you bring such a level of scholarship and knowledge in the background that is helpful here. Cause a lot of everything you're saying is stuff that I've thought, but I'm like, am I, I truly like, am I missing some, something in gender theory or something that I'm just hasn't really, haven't really considered. I feel like I've tried to read as broadly as I can, but, um, exactly.

What you said about when, when like a more traditional rigid view of masculinity and femininity, that's very prevalent in many more conservative churches. Yeah. I feel like that, that, and I don't feel people that do that. I don't think they recognize how much they are actually feeding a certain trans activist narrative that I think is actually unhelpful. And this is, yeah. And it's the gender critical feminists often pointed out, like, you trans activists. And when I say that, I mean, a really subset of trans way of thinking.

Most trans people aren't that. It's like this horseshoe. It's like they end up kind of almost having the same view of what it means to be a man or a woman. Anyway, I'm kind of just repeating everything you're saying. And what's so awesome is just biblically. I know you're more of a philosopher, so I don't know if you read the Bible, but I'm just kidding. Hey, yeah, you know, I am a Catholic, but I do read the Bible. I do know the Bible. My fundamentalist friends listen to her like, well, she's Catholic, so she probably doesn't

read it. That was actually a philosopher friend of mine who, no, actually it was, you'll appreciate this because it was in Edinburgh at a New Testament conference in, uh, yeah, in Edinburgh. And the host was the theologian, a Christian theologian of Edinburgh. You might even, I forgot his name, but he introduces us. He introduced the conference. He's like, I want to welcome all you New Testament scholars. You know, I myself am a theologian, so I don't really particularly read the Bible, but everybody just erodes. Anyway, biblically, there's such a frame, as you put it, of what it means to be a quote-unquote man, to be a male, to be a female. You have a lot of males acting in culturally masculine ways. You also have some males not acting in masculine ways.

Jesus is a prime example. I mean, if you look at both the Jewish and the Greco-Roman standards of masculinity, he didn't live up to a lot of that stuff because he didn't care. He was living out Genesis 1 and 2, right? So he was a single man of marital age, didn't have kids, wasn't having sex, you know, was reaching out to people

of lower social status, washing people's feet who were lower than, doing things that the world around them would have considered very unmasculine. And I mean, all throughout scripture, you see women doing things that go outside the cultural confinement of what it means to act in feminine ways. And same with men. And so the Bible is really liberating when it comes to these things. Now, would it be from a biological perspective, the way I've put it,

I would love to hear your thoughts, is it may be that most males will naturally act in stereotypically masculine ways. There's even all the way down to the role that testosterone plays on your behavior, your interests and stuff. But that is a general pattern that will happen. It's just not a moral mandate. And there's always exceptions to that rule. So I don't want to deny biology because some of my friends who love when I get on gender stereotypes, like, yeah, yeah, yeah. But then they almost go too far to almost say like, almost like to diminish any kind of like general pattern of masculinity and femininity or whatever, if I'm even, yeah. So general pattern, yes, always exceptions to the general pattern. And there's no moral mandate that males must act,

must act in stereotypical masculine ways. Is that, how would you maybe? Right. So, yeah, I think if you, if you go too far the other direction, you basically say, oh, yeah, well, men and women are interchangeable. There's no real difference between them. And that's wrong as well. That also disregards the body. So one I guess one idea that I'm always working with is that the body matters, that the body reveals the person. And so I very much am working with this kind of holistic and incarnational theology. So the body and the soul, we can talk about them in terms of their certain distinctions, but they are one thing, right? So that's what it means to be a human being. A human being is a unity of body and soul. So the fact of me being the body that I am is going to affect every part of my life, right?

But I'm also a unique individual, and there's no one like me. There's no one who will be like me. And for some reason, God wanted someone like me to exist. And so I'm bringing something totally different from what anyone else can bring. So there's this individual difference, this level of individual difference. And then there's also this level of sexual difference. And then there's this level, then there's the human level. So men and women also have a common humanity. So I think we have to think about all three levels, right? Because if we, if we disregard, so I think egalitarians like to think on the human level and the individual level,

and they kind of disregard the sexual difference level. And then hardcore complementarians, they like to think on the sexual difference level, and then they disregard the common human level and the individual level. Because if men and women are both fully human, that means we share in the full range of human capabilities and traits and virtues, right? There's not this like separated list of like, here are the virtues for women and here are the virtues for men. Um, so I think you've got to be thinking on all three levels. Um, yeah, no, that's super helpful. I never, I haven't thought about it like that. Um, gosh, got so many questions. What, what, I'm curious what you are. Oh no, no. I wanted to ask this question it's something you said earlier about

biological sex being a social construct I guess my question what do people mean by that right and how do they get in a sense well my first question should be how do they get away with saying that right but then I need to back

up and say well okay maybe I'm not really understanding what they're trying to get at so what was saying that right but then i need to back up and say well okay maybe i'm not really understanding what they're trying to get at so what are they can you like step inside the shoes of maybe your former self who used to yeah i know right like what on here convince somebody who doesn't know what that means of that reality um and then i would love to hear maybe your more critical thoughts of that just on the face of it just seems like the average person is like, like, how could you say that? Yeah.

What do you mean? It's constructed like, right. Like how did you come into existence again? Right. Um, yeah. So let me see if I can give, give my most charitable explanation for it. So the idea that sex is a construct is basically, um, there are all kinds of differences among human beings, but it's a it's a cultural or social power move that has taken a certain certain kinds of characteristics and clustered them together and put the label of this normative label of sex on them. So usually someone who's arguing from this perspective is going to play the intersex trump

card, right? It's going to say, look, intersex people exist. Ergo, sex is a spectrum. So as soon as you try to make sex a binary, you're, you're just do, you're playing a language game. You're playing a power game. um, and it doesn't work. So that's usually the argument. It's, it really, it really depends upon the, the intersex gambit. Um, so my response to that is one, um, inter intersex conditions. Um, so intersex conditions are, it's an umbrella term. so there's no third sex right sex refers to gamete types so there are large gametes and small gametes um all sexually reproducing species not just humans not just animals plants we're talking all sexually reproducing species have

small and large gametes there's no third gameteete. There's no third sex. There are only two sexes. So all sexually reproducing species participate in this reality of sex. Now, sexual development in human beings is a process. Like any developmental process, in rare instances, parts of that process can go awry and kind of veer off in an atypical direction. And in those instances, you might have different kinds of conditions. But what's important to realize is that intersex conditions are variations within maleness and femaleness. They're not exemptions from maleness and femaleness.

So the intersex gambit, like what I like to call it actually dehumanizes people who have intersex conditions because it's basically saying, oh, you know, you don't have a normally formed vagina. Oh, you're not really female. Right. So then again, we're, we're talking about the narrowing of these categories. And I also think that people who have this perspective, they seem to no longer be thinking in terms of maleness and femaleness as reproductive categories. They just seem to be thinking about it almost as an appearance, right? Rather than what it means to be a female is that your entire physiological structure is organized in a way that facilitates the gestation of life, right? Or the production

of large gametes. And if you're male, then your entire, your entire physiology is organized in a way to facilitate the production of small gametes. Okay. So that's what maleness and femaleness is. Can you, I'm sorry, I have to stop you here because that language is, I've been looking for a precise language and that's really helpful. Can you give concrete examples of that? I mean, the classic example would be like wider hips for women or just high levels of estrogen is playing into their reproductive potential. And same thing with men, maybe on a lesser scale. And I don't, so, so yeah. Can you, yeah, maybe dig a little deeper there. And then, and then if you could, what about a woman who doesn't have kids or doesn't want to have kids or isn't trying to, you know, this is the essence of her womanhood, her womb, you know? Yeah. Yes. Okay. So what you're talking about there in terms of,

say, wider hips, breasts, those sorts of things, those are secondary sexual characteristics, right? So that's kind of downstream of primary sexual characteristics, which would be gamete production. And sometimes people point to karyotypes, right? So XX, XY. And karyotypes are kind of like the recipes that, you know, that here's what cake is supposed to be made. All right. So you can't point to any one of these things and say, that's sex.

Sex is all of those things taken together, right? Because sex really is referring to the organism as a whole. And that's something I think that, that these activists seem to completely neglect or reject. So they, they reject the unifying purpose of all of these characteristics. And so then it just becomes this fragmented list of characteristics. And well, if you, if you can mimic the appearance of enough characteristics, then boom, you have achieved or you've changed sex. Right. But what sex is ultimately about is reproductive or procreative potential. Okay. So potential. So this is, this is terminology I think that would be really helpful. So that there's, there's a difference

between potential, potential and actuality, right? Or potency and act is the kind of philosopher speak for it if you want to get fancy. Um, but to be female is to have the potential, the innate potential to gestate offspring. Right. So you asked about an infertile woman. Well, Preston, can you get pregnant? Like if you have sex, will you get, can you get pregnant? Preston, I'm asking you a personal question. So waiting on Elon Musk to help me out with that.

Right. So, but I'm guessing like that doesn't to help me out with that. Right. So, but I'm guessing like that doesn't mean you're infertile, right? Like you can't get pregnant, but a doctor wouldn't say, oh, Preston, I'm really sorry. I've examined you. You can't get pregnant. You must be infertile, right? A doctor would never say that because you're a male and you don't have that inherent potential to begin with. So even the categories of infertility actually refer back to this inherent potential that is somehow being prevented from being actualized. Right. So to be infertile is not to lack the potential. You have the potential,

but then something's preventing it from being actualized. Right. So that's, that's why the infertility argument doesn't fall. I mean, doesn't follow because we have specific definitions of what it means to be infertile based on one's inherent potential. Right. So the, that actually affirms what I'm saying, that male and female human beings have distinct innate potentials when it comes to procreation. Okay. And you don't have to, you're so good with language. I'm so nervous now. I got to get my terms right. So you don't have to live out or achieve that potential to validate the essence of whether you're male or female. Because I think of women who have had like a hysterectomy or even like intersex females. Again, most intersex people would identify

as either male or female and in a sense would be male or female. But so you don't have to, like your woman-ness is not validated whether or not that potential is achieved, whether it's old age, surgery, hysterectomy, infertility, or singleness. What about a single woman? It's like, wait a minute, my potential will never be lived out. Am I lesser of a woman than somebody who's married? I mean,

the answer is no, but I want to kind of play around with that a bit. Yeah, the answer is absolutely not. Right. So, and this is, this is where I think actually, um, you know, my, my Catholic tradition helps me because we have such a rich tradition of celibacy, right? So, so many of our saints, um, that we, that we honor in the Catholic tradition, male and female didn't, you know, Jesus, you know, he didn't procreate, right? So you don't have, being male or female is not an achievement. It's not like something you unlock or earn or prove. It's just given. It's part of your nature. And whether or not you ever have a child or, you know, whether or not you ever procreate is kind of, you know, in a way that's up to God,

that's not even really under our control all the time, even though we really want it to be under our control. And so much of the story, I think, of gender in the last hundred years has been about wanting to control things that we aren't meant to control. And so I think, yeah, you definitely don't have to have a child to have the innate potential of procreation. But I would also say that, you know, if human beings are a unity of body and soul, then that means there are spiritual dimensions to our physicality. So there are spiritual dimensions to motherhood and fatherhood that can be drawn out whether

or not the biological piece is there. that can be drawn out whether or not the biological piece is there. And so I think that, you know, even women who are never married, you know, maybe women who are, who become nuns, or who are married, but they're infertile, they can also live out their spiritual motherhood in various kinds of relationships and interactions. And so I think that dimension is something that's really important as well. Yeah, no, that's super helpful. Gosh. So I want to, I want to go back to, do I want to go here yet? So, okay. So let's, I do want to speak more directly to the trans conversation and I want to be

careful here. Obviously both of us don't identify as trans. We don't experience gender dysphoria. We both have many friends that do. You always want to be really sensitive when you're just speaking on a podcast conceptually. And yet again, to go back to my previous point, I think there does need to be a place for sound, gracious, humble thinking through the concepts. As we just step back and let's just build a foundation of what it means to be human. So homo sapiens are sexually dimorphic. We've already talked about that. There's males, females.

Some males or females might have an intersex condition. It might be so severe where it's really difficult to determine whether they are male or female. They might even live in between this male-female space, but male and female are still the only sex categories of humanity. Then you have the stereotypes of masculinity and femininity that are based upon how groups of males and females act. And it would be, I'm very comfortable assuming the modern definition of gender,

if we can nail it down, to say that gender is a social construct, or at least it's partially socially constructed. I'm even fine. Of course gender is not binary. If you define gender as your internal sense of self, then there's probably over 7 billion internal senses of like, if you want to reduce it to this individual subjectivity, then I think it's,

this is where I didn't like several things. I didn't love about Deborah So's book. You know, he has, she has a whole chapter on, you know, gender's not binary. I'm like,

according to your own definition of gender, of course it is, isn't binary. Like now we can protest whether the definition is helpful or not, but sex is binary. Gender, according to most definitions, wouldn't be. Is that, sorry, I'm going way off of rabbit trail here. Is that legit to say that, uh, according to most people's definition of gender, that there's not only two options of internal senses of self? gender that there's not only two options of internal senses of self? Yeah. Well, I think if, yeah, I think if your definition of gender is your internal sense of self, then there are as many genders as there are people because no, you know, each person is unrepeatable. No one is

exactly alike. So that's one reason why I don't think that's a helpful definition because, and we don't need the word gender. We can just say Preston. Your gender is Preston. My gender is Abigail. You know, like what, um, but wanting to, but there, there seems to be a desire to hold on to the categories of male and female for some, you know, some want to want to totally blow it up. But, um, so there seems to be a desire to, to keep these categories, but then to detach them from the body. Um, yeah. So, okay. Um, so you have sex, then you have, um, some people with intersex conditions and then some, some humans experience some level of discomfort, distress, some body dysmorphia. And I do see that as kind of the overarching umbrella category

of which gender dysphoria would be a subcategory. So some people experience distress. A lot of kids experience distress going through puberty, body changes, being too tall, too short, overweight, underweight. There's more severe psychological conditions of body dysmorphia. There's body integrity identity disorder where even having full limbs causes distress. And along that wide spectrum of body dysmorphia, there is specific discomfort with certain aspects of biological sex. For some people, it's your upper half, your bottom half, the whole thing. For some people, it's, I mean, there's many variations within specifically gender dysphoria. And there would even be some sexual stuff that might be some people's experience with autogynephilia and other things. So there's a lot of just, you know, like complexity and diversity within even body dysmorphia, but even the subset gender

dysphoria. Now, some people find it helpful to name that incongruence with an identity. Right. Now, all I'm doing is trying to arrive at what the term trans ultimately means. If we just took it out and analyzed it on a conceptual table. So I'm just trying to lay all that out. Now, where I think it gets confusing is when that identity, which is ultimately built around naming some level of this incongruence, to some kind of ontological category of humanity that doesn't really have, well, it doesn't really have the ontological foundation

that I think when people say the term, they think it does. I don't want to overly conceptualize here, but as I just kind of analyze the language of our discussion, do you have, like, what do you think about that? Is that, am I on the right track? And have you thought about it in those terms? Yeah. So I think some, the way certain people talk about trans identities does seem to use ontological language, right?

So it does seem to be making a statement about being like i whether they use the language of soul or psyche or inner sense of self there seems to be some kind of interior reality that's fixed that's innate that's inborn that is um inborn that is, um, that, that is somehow sexed, even though it's not bodily, right. Which that, that right there is kind of like a little bit of a red flag, right? If, if sex is fundamentally a reproductive term, then why would a disembodied part of oneself, interior part of oneself, be sexed in that way, right? So I don't know. There's some confusion there. But I think there are other people who aren't making ontological claims that are really just saying like, this whole system of categorizing people this way is a kind of violence. And I just want to mess with it. You know, I want to like, I want to,

first of all, I want to just exempt myself from it. You know, I'm to like, I want to, first of all, I want to just exempt myself from it. You know, I'm genderqueer, I'm non-binary, whatever. I don't want anything to do with this system. Um, and so I don't think those, those, that kind of language tends to not seem as ontologically weighty, um, to me. So I think sometimes that's the more Butlerian stream, right? So I think where they're almost denying ontology and they're, they're kind of saying that these categories, um, are, are normative and anything normative is, is inherently exclusionary and, uh, and violent. And so we just want to kind of mess with norms. Um, and then I think you do have people that, um, really feel as though there's this kind of permanent essential part of themselves that doesn't match the body that they're in. Right. And then that seems to be making that that

anthropology or that kind of view of the human person then seems to be a kind of fundamentally Gnostic one where the identity one's identity is really in that interior part of oneself. And then the body can like be wrong. The body then is not part of one's essential identity, right? So that's, that's a different anthropology than the Christian anthropology. Like I, this is, this is where I have not been able to find a satisfying answer. And, you know, and like you, even though I do know a lot about this stuff, there are times when I'm like, am I missing something? You know, like, I don't, I don't want to die on this hill, you know, and it's, it's a really hard hill to be

on right now. And I don't want to be saying things that I know, um, well, people will find hurtful if I'm, I'm missing something, but I can't, I really have not found a satisfying account that reconciles a transgender anthropology with a Christian anthropology. So a Christian understanding of the human person, because both the kinds of language that you might hear, neither of those fit with a Christian anthropology, because if there's anything that's inherent to Christianity, it's the incarnation, the crucifixion, the resurrection. I mean, the body matters for Christians. It matters so much that God came down in a body, and he didn't just discard it because he was done with it. He like rose it from the dead and then carried it into heaven. Right. I mean, so the, yeah, the body matters. The body is a part of ourselves. Otherwise, why, why would God have gone to such great lengths to save us body and soul?

Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah, I don't, I don't know how you can have a kind of Christian anthropology. Now you do sometimes hear a kind of explanation of trans, of transgendered identities that basically is a, an argument for an intersexed brain. Um, so, okay, well, you know, it's just some developmental process that goes wrong in the brain. It's like a neurological condition. So the brain is somehow female while the body is male. Right. Um, and you know, that's an interesting theory. I think it, it fails on several levels. One, there just is not good peer reviewed research for this. There are a lot of studies, brain, brain imaging studies. The science is very contradictory, even just studying female and male brains. So there,

there are a lot of studies trying to prove this and they have contradictory results. So the science just isn't there, but okay. So that's one big problem. Second level problem is even if there were some high quality evidence, um, to show that, that say trans identifying male brains look more like biological female brains. Even if you had that high quality evidence, there still is the philosophical leap that's being made that somehow an image of a brain trumps the entire organization of the bodily physiology, right? Again, if sex is fundamentally a reproductive category, then why would you say, you know, why would somehow that not carry any weight, right? That's not a scientific conclusion. That's, you're making a philosophical conclusion about identity right there. So,

so anyway, I was just going to push back, not push back, but play devil's advocate with the whole brain sex theory, but you covered it. Because, yeah, in my book, I've got a chapter on brain sex theories as, hey, let's look at what I think is probably the best potential Christian anthropology that would argue for some kind of born in the wrong body. They wouldn't put it that way, but born in the wrong body kind of belief. If the brain is sexed, that's a big if. I agree with you. I've looked at a lot, way too much science on it. And even the best, most legitimate studies that argue for sex differences in the brain and this is something i point out my book they still use language of generalities and even one of the largest studies

explicitly says now the brain is not sexually dimorphic like the body is we are talking about statistical averages so if we say statistical averages yes most female brain or females with brains tend to do this and most male whatever but those are statistical averages there's always and again they're kind of linked to stereotypes right i mean yep exactly it's like well this brain is more emotional more agreeable more all these things and you're just kind of playing into kind of the stereotypes what it means to be a woman so i think you end up resurrecting the man is from mars women from venus kind of the stereotypes of what it means to be a woman. So I think you end up resurrecting the man is from Mars, women from Venus kind of stuff, which has been, you know, obviously addressed by feminists.

Right. And it's, I know that's ironic, right? Because it's one thing that's trippy about this is how rapidly just the field of feminism has changed and jumped on board with this, even say eight seven or eight years ago right this this brain imaging hypothesis about you know male versus female brains was just really treated as just junk science and no no feminists took it seriously and now all of a sudden it's like oh well yeah oh yeah no that sounds great right so then i'm kind of wondering well do i have a female brain like i don I don't know. I haven't, I haven't had my brain checked to see

what sex it is. Right. I mean, it just doesn't. Yeah. Anyway. The body brain thing is interesting. I mean, I get to, to, to create a theoretical scenario. If we were able to take your brain and your husband's brain and swap them, your brain goes in his body, his brain goes in your body, then which one are you? Right, exactly. And are you, whichever one you are, are you your body with his brain, or did you go with your brain, or did you stick around with your body? And I often, when, just to show typically conservative Christians that there is some more complexity here than that we need to appreciate. I kind of say that and they're kind of like, I don't really answer that.

But I do. I mean, again, male and female are embodied categories, even if there are more masculine or feminine brain traits. I think it's unhelpful to borrow bodily, not to say the brain's not part of the body, but categories of biological sex and map those on the brain. Milton Diamond, who's a huge advocate for brain sex theory, he even has a phrase I quote in my book saying, you know, if you have, you know, this kind of brain might have the emotional awareness of a woman.

And I challenged my reader to go ask their feminist friend if they have the emotional awareness of a woman. Right. Well, and that's, yeah. Yeah. And that's another level. That's another layer of a problem with this theory is that it ignores neuroplasticity. Right. So even if we say that women in general, I never really know what to do with the more emotional thing. I think it's like, well, I don't know. I know some pretty emotional men, like maybe they manifest different kinds of emotions typically, but anyway. So even if you go with the emotional awareness thing, then the question is, okay, is that just this inborn brain thing? Or does my brain look different because I've adapted to my environment in a certain way, right? So there's this complex relationship between nature and nurture, you know, between the brain and the world.

And so it just doesn't work. And it seems to me that it seems to transparently be an attempt to, like, start with a conclusion and then try to assemble evidence to support that conclusion, which does not seem like a scientific method, um, way to proceed. Right. So. And again, I just want to point out how important it is to understand these concepts, because if you were going to, well, if what we're saying is true, then it would seem like there wouldn't be a real ethical place. Well, and I'm going to, we're going to have to dig in this a little bit, but an ethical place to try to surgically conform the body to the brain if we're saying there's nothing wrong with the body

or if the brain doesn't need the body to conform with it, that the brain, the brain, the interests, the behaviors can be stereotypically unlike how most people in that body act. So you can be a biological male and say your brain just seems more feminine. If you have a different anthropology, then you're going to try to correct the body's wrong. It's not matching the brain and there'd be surgical means to try to correlate that. But if you're free, in a sense, to be a more surgically feminine male, then that would say, let them be a more feminine male. And that's awesome. And they're still male. They're still masculine by God's definition, in a sense of what that means to be just male. And that's awesome. And they're still male. They're still masculine by God's

definition in the sense of what that means to be just male. Do you see, I'm curious, and I don't know if you've worked through this. I mean, do you see any place for somebody to transition? A Christian, a disciple of Jesus who wants to live a life that is in line with their creator's design. Have you, well, first of all, have you worked through just all the ethics of that? And do you see any kind of exceptions to the rule? That's a great question. I mean, this is a question I very much, you know, I'm in a position where I'm like, okay, right now, here's what I think. Like, but I'm kind of like, okay, someone give me,

you know, prove me wrong. Like that meme, whatever the guy, like sitting at the table, you know, I'm like, okay, prove me wrong. Like, show me how this could work. So I think, I think medical transition, that seems from a Christian ethical perspective to be pretty clearly problematic. So if we're talking about social transition, so we're not, you know, sterilizing the body, we're not maiming the body, you know, that I'm, you know, I'm kind of, that seems to be different, but still even fundamentally, there seems to be a kind of rejection of creatureliness, right? That there's a givenness to reality and to our bodies that we receive when we come into the world that's not under our control. receive when we come into the world that's not under our control. And I think the kind of fundamental human orientation to God is this kind of receptivity. And so I do think that

there does seem to be a kind of rejection of that givenness in an attempt to transition to the opposite sex. Now, there's one man I recently corresponded with and something that he's really leaned into to help alleviate his gender dysphoria, because we have such beautiful language in the Christian tradition of humanity being Christ's bride. And so he's like leaned into that identity of himself as a bride. And I think that is so beautiful, right? So there is, and you have this tradition as well of mystics like St. John of the Cross, you know, he used feminine language for his own soul. And, you know, there are a lot of male saints who have leaned into this image of being the bride of Christ. And so I think there's a lot of fruitfulness that can be found there, right? Because there are ways in which we

participate in these beautiful, rich metaphors of masculinity and femininity that can help gender dysphoric individuals, um, be able to kind of embrace who they are and not reject the body that they've been given. Um, but then to also recognize that maybe they have this unique spiritual insight, um, because of who they are, that they can also really embrace. And so, so I think that, you know, I think there's a lot of creative, um, work to be done in that direction. Uh, but I do think that transition in the sense of kind of publicly taking on an identity that really contradicts, um, the one's embodiment, that there's just, there's something in that that seems to, that seems at odds with a Christian understanding of the human being in relation to God and the

human being in relation to the cosmos, right? So, yeah. Social transitioning, that's a tricky one, right? I mean, if a, like like i've got friends who are you know female and they buy more you know baggy shirts wear baseball hats have short hair but it's like again they start playing into like is that they're not cross they're not they're not trying to convince other people that they are male but they are wearing clothing that is more less stereotypically feminine i'm like if that's if that's but i guess i wouldn't i don't know if I'd categorize that as social because social transition would mean I am taking on some kind of opposite sex identity or non-my-body kind of identity. Yes. Yeah.

of what I was working with, the idea of transition where you, where you actually are like publicly asserting an identity that is, that is a rejection of your sex embodiment. Um, but as far as like, you know, I, I think I'm, I'm pretty, I guess I don't think we should be narrowly policing things like hairstyles and you know, kind of shirts you wear i don't think you can like accidentally socially transition like whoops i realize i've been wearing a lot of big flannel shirts you know like you can go through a grunge phase and it's fine you haven't like changed changed gender whatever um but and that's one thing that i really like that's why i'm you know going back to this point that i think this perspective is more freeing because a woman who looks super butch and wears men's shirts, like she's still a woman. You know, women aren't these these like Barbie caricatures like womanhood is this.

I don't know. It's it's a it's a more it's a capacious room. It's not a narrow box. And I find such beauty in that variability. One of the things I like about like going to my local parish, you know, I just go to the local parish and there's just this like swath of random kinds of people there. You see all kinds of body types. You see all kinds of women. And sometimes I think, you know, we're missing, like our culture has now, for one thing is so focused on idealized images. And I think the

internet has had a profound effect on this too. Like we are just bombarded with these idealized images of masculinity and femininity that very few people can live up to. So in that sense, we all feel like we're failing, you know, like when I read definitions of non-binary, I'm like, well, who's not non-binary in the 21st century, really? Like if you don't, you don't really fit these boxes. So I think there's something really freeing in that and really beautiful in that diversity among men and among women. Do you think there's a healthy place for, speaking of non-binary or even trans or gender queer, to have this identity as some way of explaining your experience?

I know I always get to give the examples of just two very different meanings of trans. You know, like I've got a friend who's wrestles with gender dysphoria. It hasn't gone away. It comes in, comes in waves, you know, and for them, they, you know, to say they're like when they found the term trans, it was like this profound sense of, because they're, you know, the female attracted to women, but lesbian never really fit. And like, who am I? I always felt like an outsider. Then they discovered intersex and they're like, wow, this, this isn't me, but I can resonate with this feeling just outside of this, the norm, you know,

then they found trans and they said it was just such a profound sense of relief to have a term that names this incongruence that they experience. Now for them, they're female. They took them a while, but they're fine with female pronouns. Uh, same name. Like there's no social, there's no transition at all anymore. Um, but even having that term just to, to, to say, just to be able to say, I'm not the only one. There is something out there that, you know, that I can kind of cling to. And trust me, this person is their identity. And people say, well, their identity is being Jesus. Oh, kid you not. This person has more. Jesus is on the throne of their life more than probably anybody listening. So that's one use. So that's almost a soft use

of trans. It's almost like a way to name their experience. Whereas I've other friends who when they say I'm trans, they mean something like I was born in the wrong body, even though I'm male, I am female, more that ontological significance of I am this category. I'm trying to like, do you, do you think there could be a place of helpfulness with some of these identity terms or do you find them to be ultimately counterproductive or maybe it's a case by case? I don't know. Um, I guess, I mean, you know, we're getting back to the conceptual versus pastoral thing, right? Like, you know, I wouldn't tell this person, you know, like, hey, this is what you should be doing, you know, or. But I do think the more I study this stuff, the more convinced I am that the words we choose to use matter. And I think we need to be really intentional about choosing reality-based language. Um, so for, for me, I guess I would, you know, I guess I raised that question. Well, what does trans mean then? Like if it's not about, um, you know, uh, a transition from one gender to another or one sex to another,

transition from one gender to another or one sex to another, what is it naming? Right. And so, and then what is, I guess, the anthropology behind that category you're using? Um, what's the vision of the human person? What's the vision of human identity that's kind of implied in that language? And is that a kind of worldview that you can, um, embrace as a Christian? So that's kind of worldview you can, um, embrace as a Christian. So that's kind of the question I would, I would ask. Um, yeah. Yeah. And I like, I like your distinction, conceptual versus pastoral. Um, cause yeah, pastorally, yeah. You got to meet people where they're at and resonate with their journey. And like my friend, um, whom I'm thinking of, I won't name her name, but she, she knows who she is. But, um, yeah, like when she came to Christ, you know, she just cannot stand female pronouns. Like it's just, every time she heard

she, her just visions of pink dresses and pigtails, even though that's not what the terms essentially mean, that's often what they have conveyed, especially in her stories. So it took her a couple of years before she could even tolerate that. And now she can. The term trans has been really helpful. So, I mean, we're all on a journey and there are certain things that are just like, man, it could take years before somebody comes to embrace their biological sex. And even then they might go to the grave, like my male cisgender friends, you know, who will battle with anger until they're 90 and, you know,

go to the grave. Right, right, exactly. There are some people that will really struggle accepting their male or female identity. And for those who don't have that experience, we need to be compassionate. My heart really goes out to, I'm thinking of two people in particular that, man, you know, their gender dysphoria was so severe that, yeah, I mean, suicide attempts, did everything to try to reduce it. Christian, solid, just nothing. And no counsel for them.

What church is going to be like, oh, let us help you work through your judgment. I don't know what that means. We just were preaching our Romans this week, get out of my office. And that's a problem, right? It's a huge problem. That's a problem.

And I just don't, so I've got friends who have transitioned and while I've been public with my views on what I think about transitioning, but I just, my heart goes out. I'm like, I don views on what I think about transitioning. But I just, my heart goes out. I'm like, I don't know what I would have done in your shoes. And I embrace you as a friend, as a fellow follower of Jesus. And I just, I don't have, that's really tough.

I don't think on paper transitioning is the answer. I don't think this is, I can't make a good, like you said, I can't make a good, like you said, I can't make it with all the, I can't make a good ethical case for it against all the kind of ethical problems. But I also want to, like you said, hold it with an open hand. Maybe I'm missing something. This is still a new discussion. And, and just pastorally, man, to have that kind of crippling, debilitating dysphoria, man, that's, that's, that's something else, you know? Yeah. And something I do see like some, a truth I think that is signaled in the experience of gender dysphoria is, is the fact that human beings are unity of body and soul.

Like you, there's this yearning for that kind of cohesion of identity, right? Like there's that yearning. And so I think that is signaling something very true. But, but what I think is, that's the truth there. But I think the lie there is that the body doesn't speak its own truth. You know, that the body can be a lie. I think that, that that's a temptation, right? I think a temptation is a promise that can't deliver. And I think ultimately, um, trans identification is a temptation because it promises something that can't be delivered. It promises that you can become something other than what you are. And, um, and I, I get worried now because there's this huge industry that's fueling this. There's a lot of glamorization of what transition looks like.

And, you know, I know you've talked to detransitioners and I have as well. And I worry a little bit about the money that's fueling this. I do think it's very essential that Christian communities become places where you welcome people who are at any stage of this. Let's say someone transitions and then 20 years down the road, they're like, I don't know. I don't think this is right for me, but I look at the medical risks of trying to undo some of these surgeries, and that seems like that would be unhealthy for me. Like, you know, when you get, and even if, even if, say, this person were to try to reverse some of it, they probably would still, you know, maybe not necessarily pass as their birth sex. Like, you know, I would want someone like that to feel at home in, in a Christian community. Right. So I,

I think we really need to be doing the conceptual work while also just keeping the doors open, you know, and not jumping to assumptions when you see someone, you know, who you're like, Oh no, I wonder, I wonder if they're trans. It's like, who knows? They could be a detransitioner. They could just be a really masculine looking woman. Like you have no idea. Right. So, um, yeah, it's, it's really tough, but I think that's, I think that's the road we need to go down to be, to, to hold onto the truth, but also, um, to, to be loving and open and welcoming. I call it the, uh, kind of a thief on the cross accommodation. You know, I can easily say that, biblically speaking, baptism is an essential part of the salvation.

I got to be careful here as a Protestant. Salvation experience. How's that? Or the Christian experience. Like, I'm not going to say, yeah, it's, you know, if you wanted to get baptized, that's fine, but it's kind of ultimately like it's a, it's an essential part. Um, when did it come, what comes first? I don't even care at this point, but, um, what about the thief on the cross? He wasn't baptized, but it's like, okay, if you're hanging on a cross,

this is an exception to the rule. I think God's going to accommodate. And so I think scripture gives us all kinds of paradigms for that kind of situation where here's the firm principles laid down, but there's always going to be these experiences and situations that fall kind of in between these ethical categories that are going to get emails all the time saying, you know, I just, just found out this Bible study leader, you know, transitioned 10 years ago before they came to the church. And I didn't realize that this man is actually a female or whatever. And it's like, what do I do? You know,

like I don't pray, love them, walk with them. I can't, there is no, I can't, I'm not going to email you like the black, there is no,

like, here's how we move forward in this, you know? I don't know. I don't think maybe, maybe there's a verse somewhere in Numbers that I haven't read that addresses this. There isn't. I mean, that's why, you know, yeah, that's why we can't just be rules based about this, right? That's why I think it's important to be worldview based, I guess, because, you know, scripture doesn't just give us rules like scripture gives us an entire way of seeing ourselves and reality and how we are part of, we're part of creation, right? Like that's another, I guess, tension I see between some of this really

postmodern identity politics stuff is that it doesn't really seem to see human beings as part of the created world. And so our, like how we treat our bodies, I think is connected to how we treat the earth as well. Like if we're, I just, I think we need to have this integrated, integral vision of reality and the human person. And that's what, that's the, that's what our thinking needs to be within that context. And we reason from what we're given. Um, but we've got to stay in that context. That's the thing. We've got to stay under that. Like I think of it as a cosmos, this, like we have to stay in the cosmos when we're thinking about this stuff. That's so good. Well, Abigail,

we should wrap things up. It's been over an hour. When are you coming back to McCall? Do you make it back? Yeah, I usually go back twice a year in summer and at Christmas. You know, I need a snow fix every summer. I mean, every winter. I'm like, give me some deep mountain snow. So yeah, I think we might be going in a couple of weeks to McCall. I haven't totally decided if we're going back this summer, but yeah.

Yeah. That's our ski mountain. I snowboard my family's skis. So we get season passes at Brundage every year. It's a great ski mountain. Awesome. Cool town. You're probably the only theologian to ever come out of McCall, I would imagine.

Yeah, maybe. I mean, it's a small, it's a small place. That's probably true. Thanks so much for being on Theology in Raw. You've given us so much to think about. And this is one of those episodes where I hope my audience is tracking and I hope it was helpful. But honestly, this is just so good for me just to like balance ideas off of Think Out Loud and have somebody that, you know, is further along in some of these concepts that I am to dialogue with. So thanks for the interaction. I really appreciate it. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Take care. All right. Bye. Thank you.