This coming Sunday, I am preaching on divorce (as the majority of communities are around the world) at the Cardboard Cathedral. Wish me luck – or better: pray for me/the community!
A lot of this blog post is bits and pieces that ended up on the cutting room floor as I pray and prepare for Sunday’s sermon.
In the Gospel, Jesus says “God made them male and female.” This is a direct quote from what for most people is the First Reading (Gen 2:18-24).
Genesis 2 has an ancient creation story, and Genesis 1 was a later wonderful poem of 7 stanzas – that it calls “days” – that was beautifully stitched onto the front of that. We’re not sure how the amazing (conflicting) Genesis 1 poem came to form the prologue to Gen 2ff; one theory is that it began simply with a “how do we keep this (new) text?” (Well we’ll store it at the front of this story we’ve already been copying…)
This scroll, as we have it now, begins with a whole list of nearly a dozen “this was good and that was good and this other thing is good”. Now we are pulled up short – after all the good we meet the first NOT good thing.
God has made a human – it’s a pun in Hebrew: literally humus from the soil. The translation is wrong – that first “earth-creature” is NOT “the man”; nowadays people would say a non-binary, androgynous human. And God says: “It is not good for the human to be alone.”
The other poor translation here is that God took one of the human’s ribs – well the Hebrew word is usually translated as “side”. Ancient Jewish rabbis viewed this first androgenous human as being split by God into two. For example: Genesis Rabbah 8:1:
Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: When the Holy One blessed be He created Adam the first man, He created him androgynous. That is what is written: “He created them male and female” (Genesis 5:2). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: When the Holy One blessed be He created Adam the first man, He created him with two faces, and [subsequently] He sawed him in two and made [for] him two backs, a back here and a back there. They raised an objection to him: But is it not written: “He took one of his ribs [tzalotav] … [and the Lord God built the rib that He took from the man into a woman]”? (Genesis 2:21–22). He said to them: [It means that He took] one of his two sides, as it says: “And for the tzela of the Tabernacle” (Exodus 26:20), which we translate: “And for the side of the Tabernacle…”.
There is a parallel ancient approach in Aristophanese in Plato’s Symposium:
For ‘man-woman’ was then a unity in form no less than name, composed of both sexes and sharing equally in male and female;
He then affirms that Apollo split them in halves. The Gospel of Thomas also sees male and female as two halves of a unity, in , has:
when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, …, then you will enter [the kingdom].”
logion 22
I am just back from time away (Australia and Vanuatu). In snorkelling and walks in the wild (etc), I encountered clownfish (and other fish, including wrasses), bearded dragons, and green sea turtles. All of these (and other animals) change gender depending on temperature, the population dynamics of their species, or other factors. We now know it’s often more complicated than “God made them male and female”, and controversies around the recent Olympics highlight the complications.
In 1984, NZ Anglicanism added “male and female you created us” (page 420) to one of our Eucharistic Prayers. Anglican Churches in other countries similarly added a line like this. We were trying to be inclusive. The Church was trying to move from very male-dominated language to highlight that females have equal status before God and in our community. But, four decades on, some people feel excluded rather than included by such a line. A more recently authorised Eucharistic Prayer (a revision of the one starting on page 420 – and yes, I did have a hand in this revision) tries to be more inclusive. It can also be prayed by people with a more conservative approach.
In conclusion, a little biology from @RebeccaRHelm. Rebecca is a biologist and an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Asheville USA. She writes:
Friendly neighborhood biologist here. I see a lot of people are talking about biological sexes and gender right now. Lots of folks make biological sex sex seem really simple. Well, since it’s so simple, let’s find the biological roots, shall we? Let’s talk about sex…[a thread]
If you know a bit about biology you will probably say that biological sex is caused by chromosomes, XX and you’re female, XY and you’re male. This is “chromosomal sex” but is it “biological sex”? Well…
Turns out there is only ONE GENE on the Y chromosome that really matters to sex. It’s called the SRY gene. During human embryonic development the SRY protein turns on male-associated genes. Having an SRY gene makes you “genetically male”. But is this “biological sex”?
Sometimes that SRY gene pops off the Y chromosome and over to an X chromosome. Surprise! So now you’ve got an X with an SRY and a Y without an SRY. What does this mean?
A Y with no SRY means physically you’re female, chromosomally you’re male (XY) and genetically you’re female (no SRY). An X with an SRY means you’re physically male, chromsomally female (XX) and genetically male (SRY). But biological sex is simple! There must be another answer…
Sex-related genes ultimately turn on hormones in specifics areas on the body, and reception of those hormones by cells throughout the body. Is this the root of “biological sex”??
“Hormonal male” means you produce ‘normal’ levels of male-associated hormones. Except some percentage of females will have higher levels of ‘male’ hormones than some percentage of males. Ditto ditto ‘female’ hormones. And…
…if you’re developing, your body may not produce enough hormones for your genetic sex. Leading you to be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally non-binary, and physically non-binary. Well, except cells have something to say about this…
Maybe cells are the answer to “biological sex”?? Right?? Cells have receptors that “hear” the signal from sex hormones. But sometimes those receptors don’t work. Like a mobile phone that’s on “do not disturb’. Call and cell, they will not answer.
What does this all mean?
It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female.
Try out some combinations for yourself. Notice how confusing it gets? Can you point to what the absolute cause of biological sex is? Is it fair to judge people by it?
Of course you could try appealing to the numbers. “Most people are either male or female” you say. Except that as a biologist professor I will tell you…
The reason I don’t have my students look at their own chromosome in class is because people could learn that their chromosomal sex doesn’t match their physical sex, and learning that in the middle of a 10-point assignment is JUST NOT THE TIME.
Biological sex is complicated. Before you discriminate against someone on the basis of “biological sex” & identity, ask yourself: have you seen YOUR chromosomes? Do you know the genes of the people you love? The hormones of the people you work with? The state of their cells?
Since the answer will obviously be no, please be kind, respect people’s right to tell you who they are, and remember that you don’t have all the answers. Again: biology is complicated. Kindness and respect don’t have to be.’
Note: Biological classifications exist. XX, XY, XXY XXYY and all manner of variation which is why sex isn’t classified as binary. You can’t have a binary classification system with more than two configurations even if two of those configurations are more common than others.
Biology is a shitshow.
Be kind to people.
I tautoko Rebecca’s “Be kind to people”. Whatever our perspective and opinions, let us be open and welcoming, holding together difference. The intimate union of male and female is a God-given parable for such holding together of difference in unity.
image source – original unknown to me; no breach of copyright intended.
