Trans(gression): Theological violence beyond the binary

Trans(gression): Theological violence beyond the binary.

‘Male and Female he created them…’ (Genesis 5:2).

The binary construction of gender in Christian theology is arguably as old as Christianity itself. Creationist and complementarian positions which draw on biblical narratives assert that God’s vision of humanity is manifested into two distinct forms of personhood: male and female. Perspectives which assert the ‘natural’ categories of male and female also assert that the sexes have been created with an inherent complementarity, in which masculine and feminine gender roles are inseparable from their biological sex. Within this complementarian paradigm, essentialist models of gender can also be shown to create, reinforce, and reify cis/heteronormative constructions of male and female sexuality, based on procreative potential.

Feminist theologies have, for some years now, drawn attention to the hierarchical, and indeed patriarchal, nature of these constructions of gender. Within these paradigms, male and female may be created, but they are not necessarily created equal. The implications of such sex-essentialist doctrines on women’s experiences have been well documented. However, the implications of these on constructions of gender which do not fit within the ’biological’ categories of male and female has received considerably less attention. How, then, do such theologies respond to identities which resist or transgress these dualistic boundaries?

In a two-sexed, complementary version of creation, the implication is clear: non-conformity in our ‘god given’ roles as men and women is an aberration from God’s plan for humanity. In a paradigm in which biological sex and gender are seen as both natural and immutable, identities which fall out-with this paradigm are thus positioned as ‘unnatural’, ‘aberrant’ and even, ‘unwelcome’ within God’s creation.

A 2019 study by Yasuko Kanamori investigating Christian attitudes to the human value of trans*gender individuals found that white, male Christians with high religious commitment (most notably, those who adhered to conservative Evangelical traditions) displayed a higher commitment to maintaining traditional gender roles and held a lower perception of the value of trans*gender lives (2019, 52). The subliminal violence concealed within such language is striking: ‘a lower perception of the value of trans*gender lives.’ The particular danger of these theological positions is that they are not merely theological arguments, abstract from our every-day lives. They have profound effects on how gender non-conforming and trans* people are met; socially, culturally and even legislatively.

Last year in the United States, 503 trans* discriminatory bills were proposed. Although only 37 were passed, this is still a significant number affecting trans lives in relation to healthcare, education, the military, prisons. In the same year, The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' ethical and religious directives removed provision of gender affirming care from US Catholic Hospitals. A considerable majority of these positions were explicitly underpinned by theological arguments of gender essentiality and sexual morality. Proposed under the amendment of ‘protection of religious freedom’, a Mississippi ‘bathroom bill’ (Mississippi HB1523) prohibiting trans* women from entering so called ‘single sex’ spaces explicitly draws from the creationist and complementarian beliefs outlined above to argue that;

‘…marriage is or should be recognised as the union of one man and one women’, that ‘sexual relations are properly reserved within such a marriage’, and that ‘male (man) and female (woman) refer to an individuals immutable biological sex’ (Strassfield, 2018; 42).

The explicit reference to sexuality, specifically heteronormative sexuality, in respect to a public space which bears little to no relevance to sexuality, or indeed marriage, is deeply telling. The use of such language asserts that gender is not only comprised of biological conditions, but also theological and moral conditions. This ‘cultural imperialism’ stemming from religious colonial influence relies on and reproduces white, patriarchal, heteronormative constructions of sexuality and morality which function to exclude and devalue identities which do not fit within these frameworks. Individuals who transgress these boundaries, therefore, are positioned as inherently ‘other’ and ‘amoral.’

The protection of ‘single sex’ spaces has been mobilised as an argument which disproportionately focuses on the exclusion trans*women; setting the morality of ‘biological women’ in direct opposition to the amorality, and purported threat, of trans* women. Max Strassfield argues that such bills ‘play off white supremacist fears’ which are organised not solely around the protection of women, but ‘around the protection of certain classes of white women” (2018; 40). If we are to consider that ‘biological women’ have historically occupied a hierarchically subordinate position within the gender binary, then trans*women, and particularly trans*women of colour, can be seen to be positioned lower still. As a result, trans*women occupy a position of precarity, both theologically and societally.

This precarity is reinforced by deeply trans*misogynist beliefs which consider trans* lives, and particularly trans* women’s lives, to be lesser value (Kanamori, 2019; 43). In positioning trans*women as amoral, and their lives as low value, such theological arguments can be shown to have deep implications on the safety of trans*women. In 2023, 320 trans*persons were killed in the United States. 94% of these were trans*women, or trans*feminine, and  80% of these were trans*women of colour. These startingly statistics show that there are ‘close ideological connections between…religious colonial identities...gender, sexuality, race and class’ (Althaus-Reid, 2007; 128), and that these ideological connections can coalesce into situations of devastating violence.

Whilst theologies which attend to the experience of trans*women have offered critiques of cultural imperialist theological constructions of gender and the exclusion of trans*persons from the Christian community, such efforts remain marginal in broader theological discourse. Further still, they largely neglect the impact of such theologies not only as legislative tools, but as forms of theological, social, and physical violence. This paper considers how theological constructions of gender relegate trans*women positions of precarity, and considers how such marginalisation, and the theological justifications which underpin them, create and perpetuate conditions of violence.