Single Page
E-mail
Print
RSS
G-bookmarks
Live
TechnoratiThe other thing to be said about this is that’s not all that goes into making up males or making up a female. So for example, a person who is male who gets sex reassignment surgery to become female still is very much male. And I’m not just talking about male in the sense of anatomy … I’m talking about the way they interact with others they remain very much male. For example, a male who’s become female still is pretty much stimulated in the same kinds of patterns and behavior that we expect in males. There’s a difference between male sexuality and female sexuality. Males are more visually stimulated, they’re more genitally focused on average than are women. And for that reason, they have a higher difficulty for maintaining monogamy. That same pattern for male sexuality persists in male-to-female reassignment surgery. They don’t change that part of their maleness.
There’s a whole package about what goes into being male and it involves anatomy, physiology, and personal psychology. We’re talking about here persons (males) who think of themselves as females; we’re talking about only one small portion of their maleness being problematized by a female quality. The whole rest of them remains male – anatomically, physiologically, and psychologically.
So in a sense you’re saying that one minute portion of the brain, but not the total brain, not everything that goes into making the male brain, but one small fragment of it will be the decisive factor in overriding one’s sex. And that’s the problem.
If you could genetically alter a duck’s brain so that the duck thinks it’s a horse, does that make it a horse? You change one little portion of the duck’s brain to be horse-like and it thinks it’s a horse. It remains a duck. The part that’s ‘duck’ is so much greater than the part that’s ‘horse.’
That’s what we have happening here. You have young males thinking I’m not really male. And why is he thinking that? He’s thinking that because of a relatively small portion of the total package that goes into being. But the whole rest of him is male. Now for that one small portion, we’re to completely dishonor his maleness by attempting to do radical surgery to eliminate it? That’s the problem.
When you look at Scripture for example, when Paul talks in 1 Corinthians 6:9 about the following group of people will not inherit the Kingdom of God. One of those groups of people he calls the “soft men.” Now the meaning of that essentially, in its historical context, is men who feminize themselves to attract male sex partners. And that’s the closest thing you have in the ancient world to transgenderism. Paul lists them among the group of people who risk not being included in the Kingdom.
Now, the reason for that becomes clear when one looks at Romans 1:24-27 where he talks about homosexual practice as a dishonoring of the sexual self. And the dishonoring is basically this: the logic of a sexual union is that it involves two people of different sexes. The reason for that? One sex doesn’t capture the totality of sexuality in the species because there are two sexes. The logic of a sexual pairing is two sexual halves integrate into a sexual whole. And when you have two males in a sexual union or two females in a sexual union, the logic of those two unions is that each partner is only half their sex. So they have to integrate with their other half and in effect they have to conceive of their sexual same as a sexual other. And that means in effect they’re saying, ‘if male, I’m only half male’ and ‘if female, I’m only half female,’ so I have to merge with somebody of the same sex to complete my sexual identity. And that dishonors the integrity, Paul says, of the sexual self because God has created males wholly male and females wholly female and what they bring to the sexual table, if you will, is their maleness and femaleness. What they don’t bring is what the other sex has.Continue »
