"Choose their Sex? Gasp!"
By Sophia Siedlberg, OII-United Kingdom
This article is a response to the following commentary written by ROBERT TYLER
I have to admit the latest “whinge” fest from some commentators is amusing. You can see these commentators doing the sack cloth and ashes routine across the media wailing about the moral degradation and general threat to the survival of humanity if school children are encouraged to "Choose their sex". I am not entirely sure what choosing one's sex actually entails, but my reading of it would be something like: "If you are born intersexed, you would probably have the right not to be medically abused prior to the age of consent by surgeons looking for a quick fix".
I think it is fair to assume that whatever these laws the mongers of doom are screaming about, they would have one positive effect, which is protecting children from medical abuse. I also have a sneaky suspicion that these commentators are aware of this and would regard protecting intersex children from abuse to be irrelevant.
Of course the doom mongers will not exactly impress me if this is so. It is actually a debate that can affect some very tragic and painful situations, for good or for ill, but the hysterical ranting the doom mongers are coming out with is certainly almost as good as my own. But my hysterical "Oh where did that womb go" ranting is perhaps motivated by something a little more real than some whining moralist's idea of nature being neat and tidy.
Robert Tyler of The North County Times says:
"Forget everything you learned in kindergarten about the difference between boys and girls. According to Gov. Schwartzenegger and the California Legislature, schoolchildren can now choose their own sex. I'm not talking about choosing "sexual behavior or sexual
preferences." Kids are going to be taught that they have the right to completely ignore their physical anatomy and choose the status of being "male" or "female."
Ignore your common sense, ignore your chromosomes and ignore your anatomy. This is what your politicians want to teach your kids in school. After all, California's kids have mastered reading, writing and arithmetic, haven't they?"
Well Robert Tyler the good Californian needs to take a basic "ABC" Lesson in genetics. Sorry, Robert, chromosomes are not the sole determinants of sex. The sort of kids I am talking about get badly mutilated, denied legal rights and are forced to endure "Sex Changes" at the hands of a surgeon because some people ignore the biology of intersex children. And impose a sexed joke to keep the likes of Robert Tyler happy.
You see, as much as that the likes of Robert Tyler hate to admit it, they present the arguments about such laws and initiatives as the "Transgender agenda" trying to "Corrupt children" with notions of sex changes and ignoring the way they were born. But fail to mention the sex changes and ignoring status at birth that goes on when an intersex kid is born. The words "Nest of vipers and hypocrites" do tend to spring to mind when moralists like Robert Tyler go into full flow and hammer out their articles on a probably very worn out laptop.
Robert Tyler it would appear was writing on behalf of a faith based organization called Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which makes a little more sense, because the "Allowed to choose their sex? Gasp!" Headline is common among faith based groups. As a card carrying zealot myself (OK, that is Zealot in the biblical context, A follower of the Kanai tradition), I can sort of sympathize with their reactions about some of the anti religious law making that goes on. But on this one I just think these people are not really representing faith, well not the faith I belong to. If anything I consider them a whining, pale imitation who dare to worship a sex deity that would probably resemble a golden calf if they could get away with it.
You see this is my problem. I come from a culture where faith is important and I am not ashamed to say it. Faith or belief does get a bad press these days. What bothers me is when those who claim to have a faith and act on it by preaching fatalism (More on that later). They then have the tenacity to complain bitterly when it is clear they are just being awkward. This is what I am saying, "awkward". It is not as if there is a huge golden statue in the middle of California and they are being told to bow down to it. Then I would be in complete agreement with them. No, the problem is that they are asking me to do something not that unlike bowing down to statues as a person of faith. Agreed this will be rather complicated to explain, but they tell me to worship a Gd that is obsessed with sex.
My Gd is called El Shaddai, that means "The Gd of the Strong and Breasted one" (And we are talking mammary glands here). I am not sure when Abraham when confronted with Gd would have been fussing about the political correctness of a large and scary vision of Gd booming "I am El Shaddai" while having a pair of breasts that would put Dolly Parton to shame. And no that is not blasphemy. That is what El Shaddai means. As for the presence of Gd, that goes around zapping various cities. "My name is Shekinah" How Girly is that?
The point being they do not have a phallic third leg to stand on when screaming about "Gender ambiguty" because Gd (Eloh-Elohim) the "Undefinable" is basically undefinable. It is an important point. Culturally, it is not about trying to make a version of Gd that is politically correct or in the image of "Transgender" either. It is very much the opposite; it is preserving to the letter what the monotheistic tradition actually says. And it clearly says that gender or sex is not a part of the equation. And certainly not in the way Robert Tyler and a number of religious people in the US would have you believe.
This is where I part company with these people. They cannot use religion or more specifically monotheism to attack what they call "Gender confusion". To begin with, they scream blue murder when someone, anyone changes sex, and yet they are happy to see the same inflicted on a child who is born sexless. What if the parents called the kid El Shaddai? Would that remind said moralists what thin ice they are walking on biblically? I would not personally recommend calling a child by that name, but the fact remains that a child who is born intersexed, should be respected as being made "in the image of El Shaddai". But this is not just about intersex children, it is about the religious crying foul over some law that asks teachers to refer to children according to preferred gender pronouns. That covers kids with transgendered issues as well I guess.
Or is this really about that old Calvinist ethic that denies free will? Thinking about it for a moment, if someone is born one sex and "Chooses" to be the other, that is seen as an act of free will and not really something that rests easy with fatalistic belief. The fatalist can argue their way out of that one I suppose, stating that someone is born a given sex for a reason (Let's assume this is Gd then) and has to live as such. They can argue about Gd given body integrity and how surgery to achieve a reassignment of gender (In the case of transsexual folks for example) is simply not what Gd intended. But that argument falls flat when they claim that it is OK to "Assign a sex" in an arbitrary fashion to an intersex child. (Read Matthew 19 lateley?, sorry it got lost in translation, accidentally on purpose?). I am Sorry Mr Tyler. It is not OK. Far from it. Fatalists would argue that Gd intended there to be two sexes, citing Genesis 1:27 which says both men and women were made in Gd's image. (That is one singular entity called Gd answering to the name of El Shaddai. Later on remember). They claim that anything that is not fully male or female was a result of this "Fall". Yes, but before Eve did a little scrumping in a certain orchard called Eden, I seem to remember Genesis 1:27 clearly saying that men and women were made in Gd's (Singular) image. So, no it does not wash, not even with gallons of blood red wine and stale bread.
Let's face it. They are using an ancient narrative which some would say was irrational, (that is a matter of opinion) But my problem is. They don't even read the text properly. Like in a modern translation of the Bible (Let’s take the King James; they like the King James.) We read: "The Almighty" instead of "El Shaddai". The Hebrew original says what it says. I hate to repeat what the transgendered folks come out with sometimes, but yes I do know what it says and means. It is part of my culture. The word is "El Shaddai" meaning "The Gd of the Strong Breasted one" or "The Gd of Milky Breasts" and "Gd the All sufficient" (Yes I know, Transgendered pornographers would be a bit blasphemous defining Gd as a C.W.D. You are right to whine about that, but the root meaning is unchanged. It is El Shaddai and that is that).
This is where modern thinking is very evident in so called "Faith". El Shaddai means "The Almighty" instead of what it actually means because the real meaning would suggest something scary that appears in a porn pop-up. These people of "Faith" have one huge fatalistic hang up about sex.
To the fatalists sex is about conformity to norms, and that is their biggest mistake. The biblical definition of sexual sin usually involves either ritually prohibited acts or a sort of arrogant hedonism (Wait for it) that dictates people are reduced to meat for the purposes of sexual gratification. (That is like worshiping a gold plated calf-like thing that goes "moo" and demanding people conform to sex or "idolatry").
And what was the name Gd was using when talking to Abraham about zapping Sodom and Gomorrah? And what was the name Gd used while actually pouring the hellfire and brimstone?
I think the moralists are missing something. And this brings me neatly back to Mr Tyler.
Robert Tyler (In a fit of Religious indignation) Says:
"The Los Angeles Unified School District has already adopted policies allowing boys to use girls' restrooms and locker rooms ---- and vice versa! You can read LAUSD's Reference Guide 1557 on the district's Web site."
OK, Mr Tyler, if Gd suddenly appeared over Los Angeles (City of Angels? Are angels not Androgynous in tradition and also the names of Gd) and said, "Let’s do some baptisms and I need a nice clean restroom." I can just see Robert Tyler at that scene. "You cannot use the women's restroom, nor the men's, you are undefinable and called El Shaddai. Not allowed! You made Men and Women as men and women. You say it yourself in Genesis 1:27."
Images of lightning, a small pile of salt and a pair of smoking shoes enter my mind along with the words: "Learn to read, you Jerk" booming from the sky. The commentary from Tyler then continues:
"It even tells teachers they need to refer to students using the student's preferred pronoun. And of course, it prohibits the teachers from disclosing a student's chosen gender to the student's parents. Since LAUSD has such a strong academic record, don't you think all school districts should duplicate this program?"
I can imagine this for amusement, Robert Tyler the teacher meeting a new pupil.
Robert Tyler: "And your name is".
Intersex Kid: "El Shaddai, Sir".
Robert Tyler: "Are you a boy or a girl child".
Intersex Kid: "I am in the image of Gd".
Robert Tyler: "Gd made man and Woman"
Intersex Kid: "Oh, right! You are going to whinge about the new laws in California then?"
Robert Tyler: "You bet sonny, it is against religion and against Gd. It is an abomination in the eyes of Gd."
Intersex Kid: "Really, I don't find it offensive and I am called El Shaddai and am sexless just like Gd."
Robert Tyler: "Now children - how to protect yourself in a thunder storm".
Putting sarcasm (About t Robert Tyler's lack of common sense) aside. The religious argument does not stand up regarding these laws. The religious argument about "Not choosing ones sex' certainly does not stand up. And it falls because the arguments are about a misguided reading of the concept of divinity. This leads to injustice and the injustice bit is where it gets very interesting. Mention justice to these people and it is "political correctness gone mad". I seem to remember Paul (Saul of Tarsus) Saying "There will be neither male nor female, etc" - (Galatians 3: 28). Even Paul admitted it.
What is the real objection on the part of Robert Tyler (and others of "Faith"|) to this notion of "choice of gender"? And I am a blood and thunder "old testament" style zealot, not some sandal wearing social working "Socially aware" Christian asking this. Political correctness does not enter into my thinking. What is the objection? I relish pushing sex idolators (Gender Police) out of the Microsoft Window. (2 Kings 9: 30- 37). The problem is that I regard those of "Faith" who lie about the biblical narratives in order to impose fatalism and injustice as the idolaters.
And this really brings me back to the fundamental question about why these commentators like Tyler have to say "Choosing ones sex is evil". I can accept the argument about protecting children from certain political agendas. I mean, yes, there are political movements who want to "brainwash" children, but for me it is a bit difficult looking at this from the perspective of someone who as a child had my "sex" forced on me surgically. And my agenda is simply protecting children from such medical abuse, nothing more. My faith comes into it because it is being made into a matter of faith. I can even accept the argument that in some quarters there are people with a clear cut hatred of religion. (Not that I can blame them given the way some so called "monotheists" behave). But this does not seem to be the real issue. The argument against these laws being passed in California is presented as another attack on religion and is a bit weak because it does not seem to be about banning someone wearing a cross or carrying a Bible or making it clear that they are following (I assume) the Christian faith. The argument about corrupting children's minds holds a little more weight if, we are talking about the more politically active element of the LGBT community trying to convert children to that "cause". It is possible but I tend to think that there is something else to these objections to these laws that we are not being told about. And no, I am not going to come out with the usual line advocates of such laws come out with. "It is hate crime and bigotry". I am going to suggest it is motivated by a badly misguided understanding of the Bible (And yes, I will claim to know better, at present, if any of you Evangelicals want to argue the Bible with me, I will either stand my ground, and be corrected. Where I am wrong, I am open to discussion). The question is whether that is a genuine misunderstanding of the Bible or a selective reading of it to suit a fatalistic agenda. I have my suspicion that the latter is more probable because the punitive fatalism is glaring, to put it mildly.
On the issue of gender and sex, I am sorry the objections are way too inconsistent, both in practice. They cannot expect to go on a moral crusade against transgendered folks in every sense, and then force a sex on a child actually born intersexed. Biblically speaking, it is not a good idea to describe Gd as something like a sex deity, or a harsh master (A Ba'al anyone? ).
I am afraid the "YH-H luvs his Asherah" line of reasoning from the family values brigade is out of order. The whole thing about go fourth and multiply has been take a tad too far. That is not the underpinning narrative of the Bible. It never has been and never will be. In Exodus, a golden calf was fashioned and rather stupidly named YH-H. I bet you didn't know that, historically the bull/Calf deity from Jbiel whose wife and mother were called "Asherah" was called "YH-H" and when said calf was moulded, Gd went totally ballistic. They got the wrong YH-H. Be careful. Gd is a bit tetchy about how Gd is portrayed, and laws or no laws, those pronouns and names have to be correct.
