Thinking Out Loud with Alan Shlemon - Are Eunuchs Evidence for Transgender Ideology?

Episode Date: July 6, 2026

Alan responds to three common arguments that enlist eunuchs to support transgender ideology.

Do Unix mentioned in the Bible signal any sort of endorsement of transgender ideology? Well, that's what I want to discuss in this episode of my podcast, Thinking Out Loud with Alan Shleman. I know it sounds surprising, but there's a lot of professing Christians who try to point to the Bible and what it says about Unix to try to argue for a sort of pro-transgender theology. And so what I want to do is listen to or evaluate some of these arguments. hear what they're sort of saying and try to respond to them and show why they are mistaken. So here's the first type of argument that I'm often coming across.

And that is that transgender ideology advocates are saying that they believe the Bible's references to Unix signal a trajectory of inclusion towards sexual minorities. Now, before we get into the details of this argument, I just want to clarify that Unix's that are mentioned in the Bible are sort of the most likely example of someone who today is described as intersex, okay? Now, I don't prefer the term intersex. I think that the term is a misnomer, and it's because of the etymology of the word, intersex, right? You have inter, which means between and the word sex, which means sex. And so you put the word, you put those two parts together, and you have this idea that there is a sex between male and female, right? And I think that this is misleading.

It's a misnomer. So I know not everybody thinks that that's what intersex means, but this is why I don't like the term. I prefer to use DSD, which stands for disorders of sex development. Because that says, look, there's a normal order to the way sexual anatomy and physiology should develop. but sometimes that order doesn't work out the way it's supposed to. It goes a ride and there's a disorder of that. And by the way, every body system can have a disorder of its development. So that it might affect sexual anatomy is sort of not controversial and in that sense.

So anyway, so going back to this first argument, these transgender ideology advocates want to say that there is this trajectory towards inclusion of sexual minorities that's found throughout the the biblical narrative. And what they typically point to is they first start with the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, and point out how in the Mosaic law, you have Unix being barred from the Assembly of the Lord. This is something found in Deuteronomy 23-1. So in the Mosaic law, eunuchs are prohibited from the Assembly of the Lord, but later on in the New Testament, what we see is an account where an Ethiopian eunuch,

puts their trust in Jesus, gets baptized, and of course is accepted into the kingdom, right? And so they say, look, there's a trajectory towards inclusion, right? At first, in the Mosaic law, in the Old Testament, the Unix are excluded, but in the New Testament, they're included. First they're rejected, then they're accepted, right? So there's this transition of, or a trajectory towards inclusion from the Old Testament to the New Testament, right? The human rights campaign, which is a pro-LGB civil rights organization. They've published an article on their website that talks about what the Bible says about transgender people and so on and so forth, and listen to what they write about this very point. They say, quote, this story of a gender expansive person of color

welcomed as one of the first Christian converts is a powerful part of our spiritual history, end quote. All right. So the point they're making is, look, God accepts Unix. They're a sexual minority. And so people who are transgender are also a sexual minority. And so therefore, they are also being accepted by God. Okay. There's a trajectory of inclusion. And of course, that would include transgender people today. There's several things that I think are wrong with this particular line of thinking. And the first is this. There's nothing in scripture to indicate that God has changed his position on sexual minorities, as they call it. This is transgender ideology advocates simply reading into the text things that don't

not exist. All right. Now, while it's true, yes, the Ethiopian Unix condition was not a barrier to this person getting saved. But it's wrongheaded to somehow draw conclusions about this that somehow now God is changing his attitude towards people with atypical sexual anatomy, right? Because what matters to God is what the prophet Isaiah said matters to God. And in fact, in Isaiah 56, you have one of the longest biblical texts talking about Unix. And in that narrative, what you read or in that in that passage,

what you have is Isaiah is saying that what matters to God is that you hold fast my covenant. Hold fast my covenant. This is Isaiah 56.4. And so when you ask the question, all right, well, what covenant was in force during the time of the acts, right, during the Acts, during when the Ethiopian eunuch was saved? Well, it was the covenant of grace. It was the new covenant, right? In the blood of Jesus, that was received through faith. And anyone, whether they're a eunuch or intersect or whatever, whatever they are, can put their faith in Jesus. Okay, it has nothing to do with their atypical sexual anatomy, right? But again, so in other words, the fact that God accepts the faith of a eunuch doesn't imply God's approval of sexual minorities,

doesn't approve that God thinks that castration, whether voluntary or involuntary is okay, or that he somehow accepts transgender ideology, or that's somehow all of all, of a sudden morally permissible, right? The narrative that we read in scripture all throughout the Bible does not support that kind of conclusion, right? It's just not in the text. Now, a second type of argument that transgender ideology advocates will make is they'll say that Unix, who have atypical sexual anatomy, are accepted into the kingdom in their altered physical state. In other words, nowhere in scripture do we see that. that these people have to change, right? And in fact, a lot of people will point out and say,

look, Jesus healed all sorts of people in the New Testament, but he never once healed a eunuch. In fact, a Bible scholar, Jay David Hester, I want you to see what he writes about this very point. He says this, he says this, quote, there's absolutely no suggestion that to be a eunuch is to be someone who is in any way in need of fixing, healing, or, reintegrating into society. Jesus heals the blind, the paralyzed, the possessed, the fever, the lepros, the hemorrhaging, even the dead, and in every case restoring them to full societal membership. In the case of the eunuch, however, there is no implication whatsoever of illness or social deformity that's in need of restoration. Instead, the eunuch is held up as a model to follow, end quote.

So in other words, Jesus didn't treat eunuchs as if they were the result of a broken and fallen world, right? Or in any way, in need of healing. There's just simply a part of God's good creation. Now, I think this is also a mistaken line of thinking, and

the first thing I'd respond to this is by saying that, look, it's possible, actually, that despite their claim that Jesus never healed a eunuch, it's possible that he did heal eunuch. but it's just not recorded in the text. In fact, you'll notice in John's gospel towards the end,

John says, there were many other signs that Jesus also performed in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. It's John 20, verse 30. Okay, so it's possible he did heal a eunuch, but it's just not recorded, all right? But second of all, even if he didn't heal a eunuch,

even if Jesus never healed a eunuch, This proves nothing. This is an argument from silence, right? That Jesus didn't heal a eunuch doesn't mean that he thought castration was morally permissible or that he thought atypical sexual anatomy was benign or anything. Nothing follows logically from the fact that Jesus never healed a eunuch, other than that Jesus never healed a eunuch, right? And the third thing I'd say is that whether Jesus healed a eunuch or not is actually a realer. relevant to the more important question at hand. And that is, did Jesus believe that Unix

were neither male nor female, right? Did Jesus believe that there was something other than male or female people that existed, right, or that there was a spectrum of sexes or anything like this? Like, this is what they need in order to have any type of connection to transgender ideology. And of course, I would say, no, you could read all the New Testament and there's no indication that Jesus thought anything like that, that he had any view other than that eunuchs were simply males. In fact, if you just study the ancient Near East, you'll find that the ancient near East milieu perceived eunuchs as males. And there's no indication that Jesus or any other biblical author viewed eunuchs as anything

other than males. Okay, a third argument that is actually related to their second argument. this is similar. They say, look, it's not just that Unix don't need healing, which, you know, they argued in the second point. But they say, actually, Unix provide evidence that gender confirmation surgery is actually morally permissible today. Now, I know.

That's a bold claim. And you think, okay, they better have pretty good evidence for this. And of course, I don't think they make the argument successfully. But I was reading a Christian scholar on this. Her name is Megan DeFranza. In fact, I remember meeting her at an evangelical theological Theological Society conference several years ago where she presented on this point.

But listen to what she writes in her book. She says, quote, what is enlightening for our discussion is that the outrage many Christians today express over the surgical alteration of genitals of castration when done willingly by some transgender people was not shared by many of our Christian ancestors who saw service to God as a eunuch as having higher value than conformity to male gender, end quote.

I mean, so to me this is an incredible quote. Because in other words, they're saying, look, Christians today are outraged by people who identifies transgender and undergo castration. But Christians in the Bible times didn't see castration as a problem at all. In fact, they saw it as service to God. And again, I know, I mean, I live in this world. where I studied these kinds of arguments and articles. And you think by now I'd get kind of like accustomed to hearing these kinds of things. But actually, it's a really incredible claim that she's making.

In fact, here's actually, here's another quote by her de France. She says this, quote, Unix are, quote, held up as models of radical discipleship as those who love God enough to give up their masculinity, their male privilege, for the sake of God's kingdom, end quote. So this argument is claiming that Unix in the Bible times are analogous to men today who go through voluntary castration, through gender confirmation surgery, through these transition processes, right? That this is analogous to the biblical Unix, right? And I think this is deeply mistaken.

I think what's happening here, especially with Megan DeFranza and other people who make this argument, is that they are conflating, willing to. castration that was pursued by some, that's pursued today by some modern transgender identified people with biblical era eunuchs. Okay, let me repeat that. What they're conflating is willing castration done by modern day transgender identified people with biblical era unix. In other words, the problem is that we're talking here about two different kinds of people doing two different kinds of things

for two different kinds of reasons. And DeFranza and others are just mixing this all together, right? Although some eunuchs, yes, they were castrated, this was rarely a voluntary process. And when Jesus mentions eunuchs who make themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, by the way, this is in Matthew 19, verse 12, where Jesus describes three different kinds of eunuchs,

and one of them, the last one he mentions, are eunuchs who make themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. When Jesus refers to these kinds of people, he's referring to voluntary celibacy, not voluntary castration. Okay. Now, I know that DeFranza and others are correct that Jesus does praise eunuchs in Matthew 19, 19, verse 12. But Jesus praises these eunuchs because they're willing to, to forego marriage to focus on kingdom goals, which is akin to what the Apostle Paul encourages people in 1st Corinthians 7, to remain unmarried so that they can sort of focus on the priorities of God's kingdom.

So celibate eunuchs in the biblical era are not analogous to anyone today who's pursuing gender confirmation surgery, right? I have yet to hear of a transgender-identified person today undergoing castration explicitly to serve God. Right. That's not what they do. Rather, modern-day people, modern people who identify as transgender, who undergo general surgery, are trying to align their body to make it match their gender identity. And they're not doing it to deny themselves so they can achieve, you know, God's goals. doing it because they want that congruency, that alignment with their body and their gender identity. Even if it's true that some eunuchs were intersex, it does not mean that they are transgender. This idea of being intersex and being transgender are two different things, right?

Most intersex people today are obviously male or female and do not identify as transgender. Okay, this is according to the largest intersex society in America and according to the National Institutes of Health, most intersex people today are obviously male or female and do not identify as transgender, right? In fact, only about 0.08 percent, and again, this is according to NIH studies, only 0.08 percent of people today who are born are born with what we would call ambiguous genitalia, which means when they're born, it's not immediately obvious whether they're male or female. However, they can, it's very easy today with our technology to do a cheek swab or run a DNA test or do an ultrasound or use some other evaluative tool in order to quickly clear up whether this person is male or female. All this being said, the attempt to sort of force a transgender, non-gender, non-esuitary,

binary conception onto the biblical text is completely anachronistic, right? Transgender advocates are simply starting with this modern gender theory and then are trying to impose it into the biblical text. But what I'm trying to argue is that this idea isn't found in the text and it's not coming from God either. In fact, notice no person, no Christian, no Jew, no atheist for the last several thousands of years ever thought that when the Bible says God made people male or female, that somehow that also meant that God made people who were neither male nor female, right? And the reason is because that idea is completely foreign to the text, right? Again, it's an anachronistic attempt to impose a modern theory onto an ancient

biblical text. All right, well, that's all I have for you today. I hope you've enjoyed this episode and encourage you, if you have, to share it with a friend. And also, if you haven't subscribed to my podcast. I encourage you to subscribe so that you don't miss any future episodes. And I look forward to thinking out loud with you next time.