Intergender

[sunofmysoul]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I know you are asking Jill, but it seems to me that "cross dressing" is not related to "intergender." One can only "cross" when their sex is known. Secondly, what concerns us is the practice of Scripture during the time period. Practices of propriety are different in every culture, and the N.T. is most concerned with outreaching the message of the Gospel. We are not told to preach the American Gospel and go to Africa and force the tribes' women to put on blouses to fit American social norms. I see no Pentacostal rubric, nor no Amish rubric to apply such a strict standard. The verses they use in the O.T. (such as Deuteronomy 22.5) are general principles that men and women are to abide by. Unisex clothing is acceptable in our culture, so it by no means is offensive. Since the Torah's laws are meant to be prudent, I would ***ume that special needs children and those with deformities would be taken care of in the same manner as women. The only laws that seem to reference them at all is in the Levitical priestly duties in Leviticus 21:16-23. This does not exempt them from hearing the Torah or receiving the blessings from the priest. Since such conditions are rare, and the needs of every handicapped individual is different, it is up to the judges to decide the matter of their care should there be any gross negligence.

Ah, yes, I should have clarified...
I meant to say verses that are commonly "used" in reference to transgender/intergender/intersex. I think sometimes these verses are the "grabbed straws" when trying to find something to address a subject that
I think we can agree is not covered in "black and white" in the Bible.

(It does not mean that i agree they are meant to be used that way...they are just the only verses i have heard used on the subject.)

As far as "gender confused" I think your terminology is shady. Are you going to use this term to apply to ****sexuals or just to intergender? You are after all always trying to tie the two together when they are completely seperate. I am trying to scale the language barrier here. If that is your intention to tie the two together with such terminology, it is only going to confuse the issue at hand.

I understand your question here, and completely agree, that it is much more complicated, and indeed I,myself have problems locating the correct terms
on this subject.

Let me begin with a preliminary that will allow you to see what page I am on, on this subject.

For the most part, in our society, we have the common notion (and have so been taught) that there are two genders, and one sexual orientation (that is normal, and acceptable)

They are as follows:

Since at least the 1970s, anthropologists have described gender categories in some cultures which they could not adequately explain using a two-gender framework. At the same time, feminists began to draw a distinction between (biological) sex and (social/psychological) gender. Contemporary gender theorists usually argue that a two-gender system is neither innate nor universal. A sex/gender system which recognizes only the following two social norms has been labeled "hetero-normative":

* female genitalia = female iden***y = feminine behavior = desire male partner
* male genitalia = male iden***y = masculine behavior = desire female partner

found HERE

What instead, science and medicine will tell us, (and reality) is that there are more...many more, who do not fit into these iden***ies, with a large variety of combination's.
I was taught (within evangelical Christianity) that anyone that does not fit into the previous categories:
male/masculine/heterosexual or female/feminine/heterosexual

was "choosing" to go against their natural born God given instinct, and by doing so, sinning against God and mankind, and themselves.

What I believe now, is that it is not so simple. For facts and evidence
tell me that there are conditions affected by many things (including the amount of estrogen or testosterone /or lack thereof, in the womb) that do indeed cause a different "natural born" scenario then the above mentioned "accepted" gender/sex.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by sunofmysoul

was "choosing" to go against their natural born God given instinct, and by doing so, sinning against God and mankind, and themselves.

The main issue I take with is mostly within this sentence. ""Choosing" to go against their natural born God given instinct" is to me problematic in that 1) our natures our corrupted. God's gave us a nature uncorrupted state of immortality within Adam and Eve. It was by ancenstral sin of Adam and Eve that caused a problem, and if they disobeyed under the circumstances of not understanding death and experiential experience, we all would have suffered the same. As such deformities exist in the corruption of nature, and our response to that will either be virtious or vicious both within the person itself and those that come into contact with them. There is a higher spiritual matter to be addressed here in that we are more than just our sexual impulses. 2) the second problem I take issue with this is your point is circular. God gave them instincts to sin against God. This is not the orthodox view of Christianity; this is your idea of what orthodox Christianity believes. Big difference. The distinction I think is partly addressed in #1. Which is the root of vice? Pride or sexual p***ion? I think the serpent's example most vile.