A confusion of gender lingo!

[Bare_Truth]

All this new gender/sex lingo is confusing, However I think that at least some of it is intended to be so! M to F transgendered I understand inherently but it has taken me a while to get "Trans Woman"[1] straight as just looking at it could mean A woman who has undergone transition to a male. It is inherently confusing to me because the only time she was ever an "Honest to God" woman would be a woman who has undergone surgery to become a simulacrum "[2]of a man. But in the new jargon of sexuality and gender that is of course exactly backward. "Trans" indicates that there was a gender change and "Woman" is what she is alleged to be after the transition. Poor naive me, I had to look it up to ever find out what was meant. My Engineer Mind much prefers the explicit clarity inherent in M to F (or M2F for texting efficiency).

So let me pose a few questions to understand how people break this down, Please, no rants or casting of aspersions upon those who question or answer in this exchange.

Case A
-- A man is castrated (no specification as to how)
-- He would meet the definition of a Eunuch, but is he still a man?
-- He receives no hormone replacement therapy and lacking any normal level of Testosterone or androgen he becomes soft and effeminate in conduct and appearance. Now is he a man?
-- He chooses to have his penis reconstructed into a simulacrum of a vagina and takes female hormone therapy. Is he now a man? Is he now a woman? How do you justify your answer to this?

Case B
-- A man suffers the loss of his penis, (no specification as to how.)
-- Would he meet the classification of being a Eunuch, or would he meet the classification of being a man?
-- He chooses to have a surgical construction of a simulacrum of a vagina. Is he now a man? Is he now a woman? How do you justify your answer to this?
-- He then goes further to have his testicles removed and take female hormone therapy.Is he now a man? Is he now a woman? How do you justify your answer to this?

One might question from cases A and B if it is a penis or testicles that is more important to make an individual a man

Case C
--A child is born with a rudimentary vagina and a rudimentary penis but the parents do not opt for gender reassignment surgery because they do not trust the doctors to guess right.[3]
-- At the age of 15 this intersexed individual considers both options and opts for sexual reassignment surgery and related hormone therapy in which, one of the external genetilia will be modified by creating a simulacrum appropriate to the gender the individual selects. Can this individual then be a man or a woman according to their selection? How do you justify your answer to this?

Disclaimer.
I am not seeking to start any wrangling here but I am looking for a basis for wrapping my mind around the issues involved. It is not that I have no basis but I am seeking to examine it in the spirit of:

13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

and I want to make sure that I have given the matter of gender identity a thorough hearing from a Biblical/Christian viewpoint in the spirit of " Let all things be tested; keep to what is good;".(1Thes 5:21, BBE) and the spirit of the Bereans (Acts 17:11).


###################
From Dictionary.com
-----------------------
[1]
trans woman - or trans-woman, transwoman
noun
1.
an adult who was born male but whose gender identity is female.
-----------------------
[2]
simulacrum
[sim-yuh-ley-kruh m]

noun, plural simulacra
[sim-yuh-ley-kruh] (Show IPA)
1.
a slight, unreal, or superficial likeness or semblance.
2.
an effigy, image, or representation:

[3]
It is reported that Intersexed people strongly recommend that an intersexed child not undergo sexual reassignment surgery until they are old enough to choose for themselves which choice should be made or if nothing at all should be done.

It is also reported that the country of Malta forbids such sexual reassignment surgery of intersexed infants.

[Petros]

Speaking as a linguist with a wideranging education and reading much of it in the sciences and mental hard- and software not that unlike yourn, for my own usage and understanding - I recognize I have no say in society at any level - I would say:

1a If we have access to genetic data, M / F is determined by XY versus XX. Determination of how to handle XXY and other less common combinations will have to wait, not my pidgin.
1b Castration or female neutering, spontaneous or self or other inflicted, does not affect this. The mass rusting at the back of our property is still a truck - just not a working truck. The castrato is a male, simply inoperative.
1c The hormonal aberrations that produce phenotypic males that are genetically female pose problems operating in normal society, but will not affect the genetic criterion.

2a If we cannot check out chromosomes - most of human history and most normal interaction even today - we are limited to phenotypic evidence, and will judge on the basis of physiology.
2b Any known to have been neutered - not necessarily clear in the case of the neutered female - will be assumed to continue with the birth gender assgnment.
2c Any plastic surgery alterations will pose problems. If I know about the surgery, I will assume the apparent lady to be a man; if I do not know abouit the surgery, I will assume the apparent man to be a man. All based on adequacy of data.

3 Ah, for the relative linguistic simplicity of a simpler technology - or a race that does not do things just because it can.

[jasenj1]

What does it mean to be a "man" or "woman"? The simplest definition would be to use genetics (XX, XY). Boom. Done.
What then is a "man" who chooses (or has some inner compulsion/drive) to dress and act in ways a culture associates with women? Wears dresses, has long hair, wears make-up, perhaps engages in romantic relationships with men?
What of a "woman" who does likewise?

In the USA we have narrow definitions of "masculine" and "feminine" behavior and attitudes. Those who do not conform, I believe, are often driven toward homosexuality. If you are a "girly" man, then you must be sexually attracted to men. If you are a "butch" woman then you must be sexually attracted to women. If you are "girly" enough, then perhaps you are "really" a woman.

Need a "man" or "woman" who adopts affectations typically associated with the opposite biological gender be labeled with that opposite gender? e.g. a cross-dresser who maintains biological gender identity.

In a world without an outside authority/reference, all these gender issues become fluid. Self is God and whatever one Self asserts is as true as the assertion of any other Self.

[Petros]

Must we have a special word for a genotype XY phenotype male who prefers the nude state to the clothed and is extremely interested in languages? And one for a genotype XX phenotype female who prefers the clothes state to the nude and delights in paintging things?

If the said DP [draped paintress] does NOT like to excrete in company, should we provide a special bathroom for "her" [we MAY need to develop a new pronoun]?

If it is right, proper and fair to have specialized vocbulary and facilities for the one group, why not the other?

[nakedpreacher]

My question is not what is he/she, but does it matter. He or she is a person for whom Christ died. Paul says that we ought to continue in what ever state we were when Christ found us. A man who has been reassigned to be a woman, should continue to be a woman and vise versa. The hermaphrodite, born as such, should remain as God made him/her. There are very deep issues here which I do not understand, however I am called to Love. If they want to be called a woman, I will comply, if they want to be called a man, I will comply, I will simply love them in what ever circumstance they find themselves. This is not an attempt to dodge the question, but rather a plea of ignorance.

That being said, I do not think that Caitlyn Jenner (Bruce) deserved to win People's Woman of the Year, especially since he still had a penis at the time.

[Petros]

As a taxonomist of some experience, I know very well that every classification is hopelessly inadequate, almost always with wastebasket categories and arbitrary criteria.

I can work up a schema of gender / sex terminology, big hairy deal. But ultimately every star, every planet, every rock, every species, every individual specimen is its own thing - and as you say we are to know and love them as the unique creations they are.

[twobelievers]

Mind if I put my 2cts worth in?
Hope not, since God is NOT the author of confusion (1 Cor.14:33) , and we have the mind of Christ(1 Cor.2:16) , we as Christians should not be confused by those that ARE confused !
God does NOT make any mistakes in his creation whether it be man or beast ( Ps. 139:13-16) , we here in CNV will / are "suffering" for our stand against that which is wrong / evil.
I believe we CAN still love the sinner, pray for the sinner and lead the sinner to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ w/o condoning or accepting their sin no matter how sincere they are or think they are in their choice of gender.
Pat

[Bare_Truth]

What does it mean to be a "man" or "woman"? The simplest definition would be to use genetics (XX, XY). Boom. Done. ...................

Sorry Jasen, it is not that easy,

CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome)

Every person in this picture was born with XY Chromosomes and none have had a Sex Change Operation. All of them have CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, and no cell in their body is able to use Androgen, so in spite of having the Male, Y Chromosome they develop as women. For Detail See at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome#/media/File:Orchids01.JPG

[webmeister]

My question is not what is he/she, but does it matter. He or she is a person for whom Christ died. Paul says that we ought to continue in what ever state we were when Christ found us. A man who has been reassigned to be a woman, should continue to be a woman and vise versa. The hermaphrodite, born as such, should remain as God made him/her. There are very deep issues here which I do not understand, however I am called to Love. If they want to be called a woman, I will comply, if they want to be called a man, I will comply, I will simply love them in what ever circumstance they find themselves. This is not an attempt to dodge the question, but rather a plea of ignorance.

Yes, amen NP, to Love...this is what Jesus says to do. I know it may be difficult for many reasons, internal and external, but you have heard it before..."Who am I to judge?" Can I throw the first rock?

"A plea of ignorance?" Well, yes, we do not understand all...that is our problem. God created man & woman...maybe the enemy is causing problems? Remember the enemy is attempting in so many ways to destroy us and our world around us including our physical environment...who knows what factors may be involved...so much more the reason to LOVE as our Savior does.

[Bare_Truth]

My question is not what is he/she, but does it matter. He or she is a person for whom Christ died.

Your answer is a true statement but that does not make it a comprehensive or even a good answer. It may be both true and highly relevant to to the issue but it still may not speak to all or even some of the core issues.

Paul says that we ought to continue in what ever state we were when Christ found us.

Indeed he did however I believe you are referring to:

20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.
23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

Emphasis Added
Now clearly If someone was called while they were a prostitute, robber or any other "professional or frequent sinner" one should not stay in that state, for which reason I added the emphasis, slavery to sin is slavery.

So the issue comes down to whether a trans gender person is committing an ongoing sin in the life style that they maintain. As a specific situation to consider, if a M-to-F has not had the bottom surgery and retains a penis and is having anal sex with a male husband, are they committing the abomination of male on male sex. It comes down to a question of just how much medical intervention is required before the individual becomes the sex they identify as and no longer the sex they were designated at the time of birth. Where is the line crossed between being a drag queen homosexual and a M to F Transsexual / Transwoman? (focusing for the moment on just the M-to-F cases.

5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

This was not accepting him in the congregation:

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

So then the matter comes down to a question of how to discern if we are talking about a rebellious sinner who simply wants their own way and is using transgenderism as a cover for homosexuality or if we talking about an unfortunate and serious person who is trying to make the best of an abnormal or ambiguous gender situation. Treating people respectfully is one thing but extending the hand of fellowship or placing the imprimatur of our congregation on their life style is quite another. I do not think this is an easy answer question.

[jasenj1]

So then the matter comes down to a question of how to discern if we are talking about a rebellious sinner who simply wants their own way and is using transgenderism as a cover for homosexuality or if we talking about an unfortunate and serious person who is trying to make the best of an abnormal or ambiguous gender situation. Treating people respectfully is one thing but extending the hand of fellowship or placing the imprimatur of our congregation on their life style is quite another. I do not think this is an easy answer question.

Agreed. Over in the other transgender strip, I drew some hard and severe lines. But as you say, there is some fuzz needed. There _are_ people who are biologically or mentally abnormal. There are also confused sinners seeking happiness and fulfillment outside of God.

[Petros]

And such are we all, though I hope I am less so each year.

I do fear much of this is artificial and to some degree purposeful. Nothing new under the sun; the genetic irregularities we have always had with us, and no doubt the wannabe gender crossers.[How can they know, by the way, that the other gender is moe to their taste? In my childhood - for a variety of reasons - I envied girls and Jews who seemed to have it better in various ways, but I had then and have now NO sense of what it is really like to be one]. No doubt Christians have met them in church, in the market, at home and
dealt with them appropriately. But now a force like my troublemaking colleague, always stirring up the ant's next of the department, is poking and pushing a non-negotiable "solution".

[Jim]

Compassion for the mentally ill does not include sharing their delusions. But it is often foolish and unloving to argue with them about their delusions.

[Petros]

They do not need to be mentally ill for that to apply.

[OzTech]

It is my opinion the God, based upon male or female chromosomes, 'hard-wires' the minds of men and women to be male and female but they may, for reasons of there own, choose to attempt to pursue some other plan for their life. The reason I think this is that, many years ago, I was attending a training course in the company I was working for and sat next to a person calling themselves 'Jackie'. To all appearances Jackie seemed female... that is... until they were called upon to provide opinion or comment on the current subject matter. The whole image fell apart because the responses were not from a female mental process. It had me totally confused until, during a break, I contacted my peers and asked about Jackie to find out the 'she' was really a 'he'. He could totally change his appearance but not who he really was inside.

Some time later I was listening to a Christian Broadcast on the radio and they were interviewing a lady who had been so caught up as a Lesbian that she had operations to make herself into a male partner for her lover. Then she found the Lord and His purpose for her life so she left life as a Lesbian, got her body restored (as much as she could) to be female again and, I think, was married to a Christian man.

As long as people will deny existence of God and choose to pursue their own desires there will be confusion. Satan and his minions are only too willing to whisper in their ears all sorts of lies about who they really are.

When I consider how, as Christians, we respond to gender confused people or those in same sex relationships I think of where, in terms of eternity, are we going to see these people. If we can see them come (or return) to Jesus and commit their life to Him then it is worth investing time into witnessing to them. If they are insistent about maintaining that lifestyle then we are faced with the prospect that they will never 'inherit the kingdom of God' (1 Cor 6:9-11 NASB) and could be wasting our time with them that would be better spent on other people. I mourn for them. I've had a number of people in my past choose to become homosexual. The lovely Christian girl I had feelings for in High School went away to University and the next time I saw her the friendship she had for me had turned to antagonism. I later learnt she was in a lesbian relationship. A couple (or so) of the people I was in Bible School with also became homosexual. I'm afraid that they may just as addicted to that life as if they were on the hardest of chemical stimulants and I've no idea about how they can, apart from God's intervention, be delivered.