The Real Issue Looming Over Sexual Identity and Gender Roles
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27)
“I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well” (Ps. 139:14)
Meet French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir (1908-86), a pioneer of modern feminism, who once declared, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” Her outlook would serve as a forerunner to postmodern conceptions of gender, including Harvard’s own policy on identity: “We understand that gender identity can be expressed in a variety of ways.” Its unmistakable message: Since “sexual identity is determined not by biology but by cultural condition” (Colson), one can choose their own sex/gender. Sexual identity, however, shouldn’t be the real issue in postmodern feminism except for a small segment of people who experienced hormonal imbalance—not predetermined genetic conditions—in the early stage of developing in the womb (discussed in the next blog). When the smoke of politics clears, several questions regarding the nature of gender and sex still remain to be answered.
The first question is whether sexual identity is fixed or fluid. The reason that question is even raised is because terms “sex” and “gender” are deemed synonymous. While they are certainly related, they shouldn't represent the same thing. Whereas one’s sex is a biological distinction between male and female (thus, fixed), gender goes better with traits and roles attributed to the two sexes, which Beauvoir certainly thinks are fluid. And once these terms are fused as synonyms, fluidity associated with gender roles is transferred to one’s sex, which, then, is looked upon as fluid as well. But while gender roles may be fluid, no cultural condition can change the biological reality that, first, the 23rd chromosome pair for male and female, except in rare occasions, is always XY and XX, respectively; second, females have ovaries while males have testes; third, females have more estrogen than males, and males have more testosterone than females. That’s just for starters—there are other physiological differences between the two sexes accepted by nearly everyone. So when Scripture declares that God created “male and female” (Gn. 1:27), it means, among other things, the two sexes are biologically distinct.
The second question is whether physiological differences between the two sexes generate distinctive character traits (i.e., psychology). The answer is yes. A 2012 Psychology Today article, citing a study based on over 10,000 samples, states, “Women scored much higher than in men in Sensitivity, Warmth, and Apprehension, while men scored higher than women in Emotional Stability, Dominance, Rule-Consciousness, and Vigilance.” And this is why Beauvoir states, “Women should not be judged to be equal only insofar as they are like men . . . Women and men are different.”
This then brings us to the final question—and the issue at heart: Can gender roles at home and in the workplace change with the passing of time despite biological and psychological differences between the sexes? Put differently, do these differences between males and females mandate what roles each sex should play in society? For instance, are women better suited physically and psychologically than men to raise children (thereby becoming stay-at-home mothers), or can men do that just as well? Can women serve in combat roles and perform, on average, at the same level as men? Can men work as nurses in the military just as effective as women? (Note that men were allowed back to serve as military nurses only in 1955.) In the church, can women preach over men despite Scriptures that say or seemed to say otherwise (1 Tim. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 14:34-35)?
What would Beauvoir say? First and foremost, she does not mean that there is no biological or psychological distinction between male and female. To believe otherwise is to ignore the warning in Proverbs 22:28: “Do not move the ancient landmark that your fathers have set.” The landmark represents, according to a commentator, “the inviolability of the sacred order established by God.” When a society ignores God’s basic order by asserting that sexual identity is fluid (thus, calling a boy a “she” and vice versa), it distorts the mindset of the vulnerable and will cause a long-term harm that outweighs any short-term happiness for some.
What Beauvoir means is that the existing cultural condition is discouraging women from assuming sociopolitical roles traditionally held by men. It’s a valid question that demands answers without having to mangle English grammar. So can cultural condition affect gender roles regardless of biological and psychological differences between the sexes? If a girl is given a gun, would that condition her to be more aggressive or assertive, thereby becoming, in a manner of speaking, a leader instead of a follower? If a boy is given a doll, would that condition him to be more passive and pliant, thereby becoming a follower instead of a leader? Essentially, we come back to the nature vs. nurture debate. In general, a sensible answer is a combination of both. My specific answers, which are expounded in later blogs, are as follows: first, women should be encouraged to pursue whatever vocational choices deemed fit for themselves, and society should remove any barriers to that end. If this seems to suggest that gender roles in the workplace are fluid and can be culturally conditioned, you are right. Second, while many social roles and responsibilities are mutually inclusive between the two sexes, they do not always perform at the same level relating to certain tasks attributable to differences in physicality and to a lesser extent, psychology. Third, regarding the women’s role in the church, the reality is that women must navigate with grace between two schools of thoughts: complementarianism that upholds mutually exclusive yet complimentary roles between the two sexes, and egalitarianism that sees their roles as being equal (e.g., preaching and teaching).
Meanwhile, we should “be sympathetic” (1 Pet. 3:3) with those who genuinely struggle with looking one way while feeling quite another. But rather than calling a boy a “she” and vice versa, I would greet the affected person with, “Hello, the one who is ‘fearfully and wonderfully made’ (Ps. 139:14). How are you?” Then listen. Listen some more. Then journey together to show the most excellent way of God’s acceptance of us as we are, because of Christ.
“I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well” (Ps. 139:14)
Meet French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir (1908-86), a pioneer of modern feminism, who once declared, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” Her outlook would serve as a forerunner to postmodern conceptions of gender, including Harvard’s own policy on identity: “We understand that gender identity can be expressed in a variety of ways.” Its unmistakable message: Since “sexual identity is determined not by biology but by cultural condition” (Colson), one can choose their own sex/gender. Sexual identity, however, shouldn’t be the real issue in postmodern feminism except for a small segment of people who experienced hormonal imbalance—not predetermined genetic conditions—in the early stage of developing in the womb (discussed in the next blog). When the smoke of politics clears, several questions regarding the nature of gender and sex still remain to be answered.
The first question is whether sexual identity is fixed or fluid. The reason that question is even raised is because terms “sex” and “gender” are deemed synonymous. While they are certainly related, they shouldn't represent the same thing. Whereas one’s sex is a biological distinction between male and female (thus, fixed), gender goes better with traits and roles attributed to the two sexes, which Beauvoir certainly thinks are fluid. And once these terms are fused as synonyms, fluidity associated with gender roles is transferred to one’s sex, which, then, is looked upon as fluid as well. But while gender roles may be fluid, no cultural condition can change the biological reality that, first, the 23rd chromosome pair for male and female, except in rare occasions, is always XY and XX, respectively; second, females have ovaries while males have testes; third, females have more estrogen than males, and males have more testosterone than females. That’s just for starters—there are other physiological differences between the two sexes accepted by nearly everyone. So when Scripture declares that God created “male and female” (Gn. 1:27), it means, among other things, the two sexes are biologically distinct.
The second question is whether physiological differences between the two sexes generate distinctive character traits (i.e., psychology). The answer is yes. A 2012 Psychology Today article, citing a study based on over 10,000 samples, states, “Women scored much higher than in men in Sensitivity, Warmth, and Apprehension, while men scored higher than women in Emotional Stability, Dominance, Rule-Consciousness, and Vigilance.” And this is why Beauvoir states, “Women should not be judged to be equal only insofar as they are like men . . . Women and men are different.”
This then brings us to the final question—and the issue at heart: Can gender roles at home and in the workplace change with the passing of time despite biological and psychological differences between the sexes? Put differently, do these differences between males and females mandate what roles each sex should play in society? For instance, are women better suited physically and psychologically than men to raise children (thereby becoming stay-at-home mothers), or can men do that just as well? Can women serve in combat roles and perform, on average, at the same level as men? Can men work as nurses in the military just as effective as women? (Note that men were allowed back to serve as military nurses only in 1955.) In the church, can women preach over men despite Scriptures that say or seemed to say otherwise (1 Tim. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 14:34-35)?
What would Beauvoir say? First and foremost, she does not mean that there is no biological or psychological distinction between male and female. To believe otherwise is to ignore the warning in Proverbs 22:28: “Do not move the ancient landmark that your fathers have set.” The landmark represents, according to a commentator, “the inviolability of the sacred order established by God.” When a society ignores God’s basic order by asserting that sexual identity is fluid (thus, calling a boy a “she” and vice versa), it distorts the mindset of the vulnerable and will cause a long-term harm that outweighs any short-term happiness for some.
What Beauvoir means is that the existing cultural condition is discouraging women from assuming sociopolitical roles traditionally held by men. It’s a valid question that demands answers without having to mangle English grammar. So can cultural condition affect gender roles regardless of biological and psychological differences between the sexes? If a girl is given a gun, would that condition her to be more aggressive or assertive, thereby becoming, in a manner of speaking, a leader instead of a follower? If a boy is given a doll, would that condition him to be more passive and pliant, thereby becoming a follower instead of a leader? Essentially, we come back to the nature vs. nurture debate. In general, a sensible answer is a combination of both. My specific answers, which are expounded in later blogs, are as follows: first, women should be encouraged to pursue whatever vocational choices deemed fit for themselves, and society should remove any barriers to that end. If this seems to suggest that gender roles in the workplace are fluid and can be culturally conditioned, you are right. Second, while many social roles and responsibilities are mutually inclusive between the two sexes, they do not always perform at the same level relating to certain tasks attributable to differences in physicality and to a lesser extent, psychology. Third, regarding the women’s role in the church, the reality is that women must navigate with grace between two schools of thoughts: complementarianism that upholds mutually exclusive yet complimentary roles between the two sexes, and egalitarianism that sees their roles as being equal (e.g., preaching and teaching).
Meanwhile, we should “be sympathetic” (1 Pet. 3:3) with those who genuinely struggle with looking one way while feeling quite another. But rather than calling a boy a “she” and vice versa, I would greet the affected person with, “Hello, the one who is ‘fearfully and wonderfully made’ (Ps. 139:14). How are you?” Then listen. Listen some more. Then journey together to show the most excellent way of God’s acceptance of us as we are, because of Christ.
Recent
What I Won’t Say to the Lord in My Prayer for Healing of Pastor Eddie
January 25th, 2023
How Would You Respond to Those Who Say, “You Cannot Trust the Gospel Accounts?"
September 2nd, 2022
Should the Church Celebrate, Lament or Be Silent Over the Recent Abortion Verdict?
July 1st, 2022
“Contradictions” in the Bible: How Do I Make Sense of Them?
June 22nd, 2022
Is There Hope for Ukrainian Refugees?
April 5th, 2022