Conservative Christianity, Gender Identity, and Religious Liberty: A Primer and a Proposal 3030423921, 9783030423926

Table of contents :
Preface
Why This Book?
Acknowledgments
Contents
About the Author
Chapter 1: Introduction: Transgender and Nonbinary Identities
References
Chapter 2: Conceptualizations of Gender: From Biblical to Queer
The Gender Binary, Essentialism, and Complementarianism
Queer Conceptions of Gender
References
Chapter 3: Impact of Religious Freedom Policies on Transgender Rights
Demise of Transgender Rights Under the Trump Administration
References
Chapter 4: Exemptions to Title IX: Religious Liberty in Higher Education
Transgender Issues and Christian Social Work Education
References
Chapter 5: Trans Advocacy and Activism in Conservative Christian Communities
Transformation
Contact Theory
Concerns About Attitudes and Practices Regarding Transgender Issues
Motivating Force Behind Advocacy and Activism
Role as Advocate/Activist
The Potential for Transformation
Content Analysis of Websites
Discussion and Conclusion
References
Chapter 6: A Proposal: Morality over Legality
A Pluralistic Morality
From Moral Judgment to Dialogue and Transformation
References
Index

Citation preview

Conservative Christianity, Gender Identity, and Religious Liberty A Primer and a Proposal

Dirk H. de Jong

Conservative Christianity, Gender Identity, and Religious Liberty

Dirk H. de Jong

Conservative Christianity, Gender Identity, and Religious Liberty A Primer and a Proposal

Dirk H. de Jong Siena College Albany, NY, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-42392-6    ISBN 978-3-030-42393-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42393-3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the ­publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and ­institutional affiliations. Cover pattern © Harvey Loake This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To my kids, and all those who belong to their generation—you are the promise.

Preface

Why This Book? I am a social work educator and researcher with an interest in gender issues. I believe that our society is gendered in many unhelpful ways, limiting how people are allowed to express themselves or relate to each other. I also believe that new scientific and cultural understandings of the concept of gender provide exciting opportunities for social change. More specifically, I believe that the issue of transgender rights is one of the most significant human/civil rights issues of our time, related to these developments. In addition, I have been intrigued by the influence of religious thought on the debate about gender identity, as it has become a flashpoint in the culture war. A little anecdote about my early history may clarify this interest. I grew up in the Netherlands, in a Dutch-Reformed household. I said prayers daily and attended church regularly. I sang in the church children’s choir for several years and attended a Protestant elementary school. My father was a deacon in our congregation. Yet, he also was a union member and voted for the labor party in every election. My father’s faith-­ based moral views were translated into a stance on social justice issues that aligned better with the platform of the workers’ party than the more conservative politics of the Christian Democrats—and in that regard my father was not alone. Obviously, many people in the United States who engage in religious practice are similarly inspired by their faith to engage with social justice issues. However, I have also found that, with respect to the discourse about gender identity, some Christians go through a soul-­ wrenching process of attempting to align religion, morality, and politics. vii

viii 

PREFACE

With this book I want to put the apparent tension in some context and, ultimately, suggest a new way to think about the relationship between gender diversity and faith. The title of this book refers to “conservative Christians”. I used this term to identify not only evangelical Protestants, but conservative Catholics as well, with a common denominator being the view that the Bible provides inerrant dogma that should be interpreted literally. That said, I have learned that even conservative Christians don’t all think alike. I have tried to do justice to that observation by avoiding unqualified generalizations. As a researcher and writer, I feel I have been privileged to examine the topic of this book mostly by looking from the outside in, but with empathy toward the people whose views I describe, and hopefully with sensitivity toward the values they hold. As I was writing, I asked myself multiple times: Am I the right person to write a book like this? I do not belong to or attend a conservative Christian church. Also, I am not an authority with respect to the lived experience of being transgender and Christian. And while I discuss legislation relevant to the conflict between issues of gender identity and religious liberty, I am not qualified to suggest any legal solutions. Instead, given my background, I have wanted to examine the ethical dilemma underlying this topic and the possibility of a moral framework that would provide for the dilemma’s resolution through dialogue and transformation. Thus, following an exploration of contextual issues, that is what the discussion in this book leads up to. Along the way, I touch on “big” themes and concepts: gender identity, Christianity, religious freedom, morality. Obviously, each is worthy of further in-depth examination and I have tried to cite many references for that purpose. I would also like to note that the chapters that more specifically focus on policies and legislation in the United States still provide insights relevant to the discussion elsewhere. This book is a primer, an introduction to the multifaceted topic of faith and gender identity. My goal in writing it was to make some meaningful connections and to provide context for the discourse around this topic. In addition, I wanted to propose a new way to think about reconciling religious liberty and transgender rights. I hope that my reflections in that regard stimulate the dialogue. It seems that, ultimately, reflection and dialogue will be the tools of change with respect to issues of gender identity. I do have a preference for the outcome of this change process and want to be transparent about that. Thus, I want to advocate for the full inclusion of gender-diverse populations in communities of faith, as in all aspects of

 PREFACE 

ix

social life. I also want to be upfront about my beliefs that have shaped that preference: (1) I believe that current scientific knowledge needs to help inform ethical decisions about sex and gender; (2) I believe that transgender identities are “real” and need to be accommodated; (3) I believe that the experience of gender identity can be binary (female and male), as well as nonbinary (“everything in between female and male”) or non-existent (“agender”); (4) I believe that any discrimination of people who identify as transgender, nonbinary, or agender is harmful to them and to society at large. I hope that the reader who does not share these beliefs will not, at this point, close the book. While I want to be transparent about where I am coming from, I realize that dialogue is not about persuasion, that its path is not pre-conceived and its outcome hard to predict. That said, this book is meant to contribute to further discussion and to the search for a moral framework to guide the ethical decision-making process about gender identity and religious liberty. Albany, NY

Dirk H. de Jong

Acknowledgments

I want to thank Siena College for its generosity in awarding several summer research grants that enabled me to study the topic of faith and gender identity, and for the sabbatical in the fall of 2019 that gave me the time to write much of this book. Also my thanks to Rick Chamiec-Case, executive director of the North American Association of Christians in Social Work (NACSW), for his cooperation with some of my research, and to David Sherwood, former editor of Social Work & Christianity, for feedback on the manuscript. Finally, I want to acknowledge the support of Amy Invernizzi at Palgrave Macmillan in shepherding this project through the publication process, and the helpful suggestions from the publisher’s reviewer.

xi

Contents

1 Introduction: Transgender and Nonbinary Identities 1 References  7 2 Conceptualizations of Gender: From Biblical to Queer 9 The Gender Binary, Essentialism, and Complementarianism 10 Queer Conceptions of Gender 20 References 22 3 Impact of Religious Freedom Policies on Transgender Rights29 Demise of Transgender Rights Under the Trump Administration 35 References 38 4 Exemptions to Title IX: Religious Liberty in Higher Education45 Transgender Issues and Christian Social Work Education 48 References 54 5 Trans Advocacy and Activism in Conservative Christian Communities57 Transformation 58 Contact Theory 60 Concerns About Attitudes and Practices Regarding Transgender Issues 63 Motivating Force Behind Advocacy and Activism 66 xiii

xiv 

Contents

Role as Advocate/Activist 67 The Potential for Transformation 69 Content Analysis of Websites 72 Discussion and Conclusion 72 References 73 6 A Proposal: Morality over Legality77 A Pluralistic Morality 79 From Moral Judgment to Dialogue and Transformation 83 References 86 Index91

About the Author

Dirk de Jong was born in the Netherlands, where he studied journalism. After coming to the United States, he worked as a day care teacher, a special educator, and a social worker. He obtained his PhD in Social Welfare from the University at Albany and teaches in the social work program of Siena College in Loudonville, NY, where he is also co-director of the Peace Studies minor. Dirk de Jong’s research interests are in the areas of gender identity, social policy, and social change.

xv

CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Transgender and Nonbinary Identities

Abstract  This introductory chapter describes the gender-diverse community, distinguishing between those who transition within the binary model of gender and those who identify as being neither female nor male, but somewhere along the continuum between these two poles or completely outside of the binary (i.e. “agender”). This introduction also provides an overview of the other chapters in the book, linking the issue of gender identity to the notion of religious liberty and previewing the conflict between the two. Keywords  Transgender • Genderqueer • Nonbinary • Gender variant In the past few years, American popular culture has witnessed various manifestations of transgender identities and gender variance, from the musical Kinky Boots performed on stages around the country, to the portrayal of Caitlyn Jenner’s post-transition life on reality television, to the Oscar-winning performance of Laverne Cox in the Netflix show Orange is the New Black. These events constituted a departure from traditional representations of gender and gender identity as fixed and based on physical appearance. However, the histories of cultures around the globe mention transgender people. Even in the United States there had been sporadic news stories, such as the reporting of Christine Jorgensen’s sex reassignment surgery in the early 1950s and of tennis pro Renée Richards’ 1977 © The Author(s) 2020 D. H. de Jong, Conservative Christianity, Gender Identity, and Religious Liberty, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42393-3_1

1

2 

D. H. DE JONG

court case allowing her to compete as a woman following a sex change operation. Less well-known to the American public have been many activists who pushed the gender envelope, often advocating for other social justice causes as well: Sylvia Rivera and Marsha Johnson (co-founders of the Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries in New York City in 1970), Anne Ogborn (who started Transgender Nation in 1992), Riki Wilchins (author, and co-founder of The Transexual Menace in 1993 and founder of Gender PAC in 1995), author Leslie Feinberg, author and performance artist Kate Bornstein, and biologist/author/artist Julia Serano. In addition, academic scholarship (see Chap. 2) has helped accelerate changes in perspectives on gender, ultimately prompting Time magazine, featuring a picture of Laverne Cox on the cover, to proclaim “the transgender tipping point” in 2014 (Steinmetz, 2014). It may be assumed that the “coming-out” of many in the transgender community has had much to do with the spread of the Internet. People who previously were afraid to disclose their gender identity or who lived isolated lives on the margins of society were able to connect with one another and find validation and acceptance. There has also been a shift in attitudes toward transgender people. According to a 2019 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute, 62% of all Americans expressed that they had become more supportive of transgender rights over the previous five years, with those between the ages 18–29 showing the greatest proportion of respondents (68%) reporting this change (Jones, Jackson, Najle, Bola, & Greenberg, 2019). While this attitudinal shift has been dramatic, it has only been achieved due to the persistent efforts by transgender activists, often at a significant personal cost. Also, in spite of the positive developments, transgender people continue to be part of a population at risk of marginalization and discrimination. Because of this, the transgender community shows high rates of attempted suicide (Haas, Rodgers, & Herman, 2014) and victimization (Human Rights Campaign, 2018). Lethal violence perpetrated against trans women of color is of particular concern (Martinez & Law, 2019). According to a report by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP), 27 transgender or gender-nonconforming individuals were victims of hate-violence-­ related homicides in 2017 (52% of all anti-LGBTQ homicides); 22 of these homicides (or 40% of the total) were perpetrated against trans women of color (Waters, Pham, & Convery, 2018). The NCAPV also reported that during the two-month period of May 15 till July 15, 2019, coinciding with celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Stone Wall

1  INTRODUCTION: TRANSGENDER AND NONBINARY IDENTITIES 

3

uprising, there were 14 homicides of LGBTQ persons (including 7 Black trans women), while 2 more trans women of color died in detention (National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 2019). Transgender persons who pursue a transition do so because of a profound mismatch between their own sense of gender identity and the gender identity given to them at birth based on genital appearance. This characteristic sets them apart from cisgender people, who experience congruence between gender identity and gender assigned at birth. A transgender person assigned male at birth identifies as female, and vice versa. In many instances, this cross-identification happens very early, sometimes as early as age 3. Transgender people transition because they feel they have to, even though this process can be costly, both financially and in terms of social acceptance. A gender transition allows them to bring their appearance in line with how they experience their identity. Transitions may involve hormonal therapy and sometimes include surgery. Not all segments of society have bought into the idea that a transgender identity can be “real”, a manifestation of biological diversity. This is especially true for those who believe that gender is fixed as female or male, and has been divinely ordained, based on genital anatomy at birth. However, a review of the relevant research, published in 2015, concluded: “Current data suggest a biologic etiology for transgender identity” (Saraswat, Weinand, & Safer, 2015, p. 202). Also, research has shown the benefits of medical interventions for gender dysphoria. For example, researchers in the Netherlands found that puberty suppression in adolescents (a reversible treatment) “relieves the acute distress accompanying gender dysphoria” (de Vries, Steensma, Doreleijers, & Cohen-Kettenis, 2011, p.  2282), while a Belgian study of people with gender dysphoria showed a “significant reduction” on measures of psychological variables, like anxiety and depression, after diagnosis and the start of hormone therapy (Heylens, Verroken, De Cock, T’Sjoen, & De Cuypere, 2014, p. 122) Also, a meta-analysis of 28 studies conducted by Murad et al. (2010) tentatively suggested positive social and psychological outcomes for transgender persons following hormonal therapy as part of their treatment. Moreover, researchers at Cornell University conducted a comprehensive review of the literature (a total of 73 articles, published up to June 2017) and concluded that “gender transition is effective in treating gender dysphoria and can significantly improve the well-being of transgender individuals” (“What does the scholarly research say”, n.d.). Research has changed clinical views as well, leading to the replacement of “gender

4 

D. H. DE JONG

identity disorder” with the newer diagnosis of “gender dysphoria” in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, pp. 451–459). This change acknowledges that clinical symptoms are not inherent in being transgender, but are the result of being marginalized and discriminated against. The importance of new scientific knowledge about gender identity and the danger of ignoring this knowledge cannot be stressed enough, as suggested by parallel developments in research about homosexuality. Thus, it is now firmly established that the practice of conversion therapy, advocated by some conservative Christian denominations to change the sexual orientation of gay people, in fact harms the persons who are subjected to it in regard to mental health, educational achievement, and spiritual well-being (Ryan, Toomey, Diaz, & Russell, 2018). The same can be said about various forms of conversion therapy with respect to gender identity, all of which, according to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, are neither effective nor ethical (WPATH, 2012, p. 16). While a transgender person takes on her/his new identity within a binary framework of gender (female or male), there are other, nonbinary forms of gender variance. Nonbinary or genderqueer (both terms will be used interchangeably in this book) identities and issues became prominent given theories of social construction and third-wave feminism, as will be elaborated on in the next chapter. Also, it is worth noting that a recent scientific study from Israel supports a nonbinary model of gender, finding that human brains are like complex “mosaics” which cannot be categorized as just male or female (Joel et al., 2015). In the context of a discussion about gender diversity and faith, mention should be made of Virginia Ramey Mollenkott’s book titled Omnigender: A Trans-Religious Approach, first published in 2001, in which she described a nonbinary paradigm of gender from a religious perspective (Mollenkott, 2001/2007). At this moment in time, many young people, particularly those from Generation Z, born after 1996, seek to define their individuality outside the normative parameters of gender. They identify as genderqueer or nonbinary, but also as gender fluid, gender nonconforming, bigender, agender, or just queer. They queer stereotypes of femininity and masculinity (see, for example, Sanchez, 2017). They gather in school Pride clubs, browse genderqueer websites, watch genderqueer videos, and read genderqueer blogs. Even the general population is becoming more accepting of the idea that gender identity occurs on a spectrum. Thus, according to the previously cited poll by the Public Religion Research

1  INTRODUCTION: TRANSGENDER AND NONBINARY IDENTITIES 

5

Institute, 40% of all Americans stated a belief in a range of gender identities, as opposed to the binary view of gender (Jones, Jackson, Najle, Bola, & Greenberg, 2019). All told, it has been estimated that about two million people in the United States identify as other than cisgender (see Meerwijk & Sevelius, 2017). As better data reporting methods become available, this estimate may well prove to be on the conservative side. Clearly, the struggle to live one’s life as genderqueer is different from the struggle that leads one to transition to the opposite gender within a binary framework. However, from an analytical perspective there is no need to separate the two, since acceptance of both transgender and genderqueer identities can be framed by a theory that describes gender as flexible and on a spectrum (i.e. Queer Theory; see Chap. 2), while opposition typically relies on the traditional assumptions that gender is based on sex as determined at birth, has defining characteristics according to a binary model, and is not flexible and cannot be changed (the “essentialist” view of gender, often resulting from religious beliefs, also discussed further in Chap. 2). The differences between queer and essentialist views on gender have implications in terms of ethical decisions and policy making, leading—in particular—to a clash between the notions of nondiscrimination and religious liberty. This book aims to explore that conflict and possible avenues toward its resolution. It is about the barriers to understanding and acceptance of gender diversity, and about the possibility of reconciling religious beliefs with the reality and affirmation of transgender and other gender-variant individuals. Please note that in the chapters that follow the word “gender variant” serves as an umbrella term (including transgender and nonbinary or genderqueer identities). “Transgender”, by itself, is sometimes used as an umbrella term, as are “trans”, “trans∗” (asterix added), and “gender diverse”. Use of specific terms may be related to the academic discipline or community to which the speaker or writer belongs. The terminology also continues to evolve. The thesis of this book is that the debate about transgender rights and religious liberty has suffered from a lack of understanding of the science related to gender and gender identity, as well as from ambiguity in the notion of religious liberty. Additionally, the concern about social justice in faith-based communities and the interest of young people in gender diversity are suggested as openings for a renewed dialogue. To this end, the reader is taken on a quick tour of several topic areas relevant to the conflict

6 

D. H. DE JONG

between issues of gender identity and religious liberty, culminating in a proposed moral framework for a constructive dialogue about these issues. Following this introductory chapter, Chap. 2 describes both traditional Biblical beliefs about gender (“essentialism” and “complementarianism”), as well as contemporary concepts based on Queer Theory and new scientific findings related to gender identity. It also begins to explore how these different views lead to conflicts in the public policy arena. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the notion of religious freedom as it has been articulated in the law and by the courts, and in terms of its interpretation by way of public policies and administrative rules. It also describes the expansion of religious freedom protections under the Trump administration at the cost of transgender rights. Chapter 4 discusses how colleges and universities have used religious exemptions to Title IX (which prohibits discrimination based on sex in educational settings) to circumvent accommodations for transgender students. It also reports on the author’s research regarding social work education programs in conservative Christian schools. These programs are of interest as a specific case of the conflict between religious, personal, and professional values, due to social work’s Code of Ethics, which specifically prohibits discrimination based on—among other variables—gender identity and gender expression. Chapter 5 explores the construct of “transformation”, in the context of reconciling opposing views on gender identity and religious liberty. The chapter draws on the findings of a qualitative study exploring trans advocacy and activism directed at conservative Christian communities, illustrating the heterogeneity of these settings. It also discusses the strategy of dialogue as a possible avenue toward personal and social transformation. Finally, Chap. 6 acknowledges the legal conundrum involving the conflict between religious freedom and nondiscrimination. Given the apparent inability of legal minds to resolve this conflict, it proposes returning to a discussion of morality. The chapter then outlines a pluralistic moral perspective that could accommodate broad-based religious values as well as scientific reasoning in the dialogue about gender diversity in conservative Christian settings and beyond.

1  INTRODUCTION: TRANSGENDER AND NONBINARY IDENTITIES 

7

References American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edition: DSM-5. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. de Vries, A.  L. C., Steensma, T.  D., Doreleijers, T.  A. H., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2011). Puberty suppression in adolescents with gender identity disorder: A prospective follow-up study. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8(8), 2276–2283. Haas, A.  P., Rodgers, P.  L., & Herman, J.  L. (2014). Suicide attempts among transgender and gender non-conforming adults. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-SuicideReport-Final.pdf Heylens, G., Verroken, C., De Cock, S., T’Sjoen, G., & De Cuypere, G. (2014). Effects of different steps in gender reassignment therapy on psychopathology: A prospective study of persons with agender identity disorder. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 11(3), 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12363 Human Rights Campaign. (2018). Dismantling a culture of violence. Retrieved from https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/2018Anti TransViolenceReportSHORTENED.pdf?_ga=2.51972841.1103722053. 1563309447-1533875587.1563309447 Joel, D., Berman, Z., Tavor, I., Wexler, N., Gaber, O., Stein, Y., et al. (2015). Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic. Proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences, 112(50), 15468–15473. Retrieved from https://www. pnas.org/content/pnas/112/50/15468.full.pdf Jones, R. P., Jackson, N., Najle, M., Bola, O., & Greenberg, D. (2019). America’s growing support for transgender rights. Public Religion Research Institute. Retrieved from https://www.prri.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/06/ PRRI_Jun_2019_LGBT-Survey-1.pdf Martinez, G., & Law, T. (2019, June 12). Two recent murders of black trans women in Texas reveal a nationwide crisis, advocates say. Time. Retrieved from https://time.com/5601227/twoblack-trans-women-murders-in-dallas-anti-trans-violence/ Meerwijk, E.  L., & Sevelius, J.  M. (2017). Transgender population size in the United States: A meta-regression of population-based probability samples. American Journal of Public Health, 107(2), e1–e8. Mollenkott, V.  R. (2001/2007). Omnigender: A trans-religious approach. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press. Murad, M. H., Elamin, M. B., Garcia, M. Z., Mullan, R. J., Murad, A., Erwin, P.  J., et  al. (2010). Hormonal therapy and sex reassignment: A systematic review and meta-analysis of quality of life and psychosocial outcomes. Clinical Endocrinology, 72(2), 214–231.

8 

D. H. DE JONG

National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. (2019). Pride and pain: A snapshot of anti-LGBTQ hate and violence during Pride season 2019. Retrieved from http://avp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/AVP_Pride2019_HV_infographic.pdf Ryan, C., Toomey, R. B., Diaz, R. M., & Russell, S. T. (2018). Parent-initiated sexual orientation change efforts with LGBT adolescents: Implications for young adult mental health and adjustment. Journal of Homosexuality, 67(2), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2018.1538407 Sanchez, G. H. (2017, June 27). These trendsetters are challenging the stereotypes of Black masculinity. BuzzFeed News. Retrieved from https://www. buzzfeednews.com/article/gabrielsanchez/black-dandyism#.%20sdZYB9Or Saraswat, A., Weinand, J. D., & Safer, J. D. (2015). Evidence supporting the biologic nature of gender identity. Endocrine Practice, 21(2), 199–204. Steinmetz, K. (2014, May 29). America’s transition. Time. Retrieved from https://time.com/135480/transgender-tipping-point/ Waters, E., Pham, L., & Convery, C. (2018). A crisis of hate: A report on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer hate violence homicides in 2017. In National Coalition of anti-violence programs. Retrieved from http://avp.org/ wp-content/uploads/2018/01/a-crisis-of-hate-january-release-12218.pdf WPATH (World Professional Organization for Transgender Health). (2012). Standards of care, 7th version. Retrieved from https://www.wpath.org/media/ cms/Documents/SOC%20v7/Standards%20of%20Care_V7%20Full%20 Book_English.pdf What does the scholarly research say. (n.d.). What does the scholarly research say about the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being? What We Know. Center for the Study of Inequality: Cornell University. Retrieved from https:// whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-thescholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

CHAPTER 2

Conceptualizations of Gender: From Biblical to Queer

Abstract  This chapter describes both traditional Biblical beliefs about gender and contemporary concepts based on Queer Theory and new scientific findings related to gender identity. It also begins to explore how these different views lead to conflicts in the public policy arena. Keywords  Gender binary • Essentialism • Complementarianism • “Gender ideology” • Queer Theory Alternative expressions of gender have found their way into many aspects of popular culture over the past two decades, but obstacles to their acceptance remain, particularly with respect to conflicting religious conceptualizations of gender. A 2019 review of 29 studies found evidence of trans prejudice among people identifying as “religious” or Christian, while fundamentalist views and practices in particular were associated with negative attitudes toward transgender and gender-variant persons (Campbell, Hinton, & Anderson, 2019). Transgender acceptance varies among religious groups, but according to the Pew Research Center (Smith, 2017) white evangelicals seem least receptive to changing perspectives on gender identity. For example, only 15% of white evangelicals said that gender “can be different from sex at birth”, compared to 44% of respondents from white mainline denominations, 36% of Black Protestants, 46% of Catholics, and 71% of atheists and agnostics. Furthermore, 61% of white evangelicals © The Author(s) 2020 D. H. de Jong, Conservative Christianity, Gender Identity, and Religious Liberty, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42393-3_2

9

10 

D. H. DE JONG

said that “American society has gone too far in accepting transgender people”, while this view was held by 33% of respondents from white mainline churches, 29% of Black Protestants, 27% of Catholics, and 16% of atheists and agnostics. Additional research showed that, compared to respondents from other Christian denominations, white evangelicals were less likely to know a transgender person (Pew Research Center, 2016) and to endorse the idea of transgender persons being able to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with (Lipka, 2016). Although white evangelicals continue to be the most conservative in their attitudes toward transgender people and issues, it should be noted that this group is not homogeneous and that views are changing, even in this demographic; thus, according to a recent survey, 52% of white evangelical Protestants responded that their views on transgender rights had become more supportive over the previous five years (Jones, Jackson, Najle, Bola, & Greenberg, 2019).

The Gender Binary, Essentialism, and Complementarianism Compared to the secular population or to other religious groups, evangelical Christians generally believe more strongly in a fixed gender binary, a finding which shows a positive relationship with more negative attitudes toward transgender persons (Kanamori, Pegors, Hulgus, & Cornelius-­ White, 2017). This relationship was also found in a prior survey of heterosexual respondents not selected based on religious beliefs (Norton & Herek, 2013). However, Kanamori et al. found a somewhat more tentative relationship, which they presumed to have been mediated by a faith-­ based valuing of all human beings. They state: Although nothing definitive may be said about a causal relationship between human value and sex/gender beliefs, what seems to be the case is that, for evangelical Christians, holding to a gender binary does not directly translate into a devaluing of transgender persons, nor does a high regard for transgender persons necessarily stem from a more fluid view of gender. (p. 83)

While this is an intriguing hypothesis, it could also be suggested that—in this case—the notion of “human value” as a mediating factor may be related to the oft-heard “accepting the sinner, but not the sin”, an expression that members of gender and sexual minorities typically do not experience as accepting. Additionally, aside from its relationship to attitudes

2  CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF GENDER: FROM BIBLICAL TO QUEER 

11

toward transgender persons, a belief in a firm gender binary sidesteps the conversation about the role of scientific findings in developing a (pluralistic) moral framework from which to view gender identity issues (more on that in the final chapter of this book). The discussion about gender identity issues is seen as one of the major challenges facing conservative Christians (Anderson, 2018). Austen Hartke, who created a series of YouTube videos titled Transgender and Christian, has said: Whether we know it or not, transgender people are already a part of our church communities. As of 2016, at least 1.4 million adults in the U.S. identify as transgender, and 66 percent of trans people have been a part of a faith community at some point in their life. Unfortunately, 1 in 5 trans people of faith reported leaving their faith community due to rejection. (Hartke, 2017, para. 3)

Clearly, conservative religious communities are struggling to come to terms with the transgender movement. This struggle is exemplified by the tension between general Christian values of acceptance and empathy for marginalized individuals on the one hand, and a worldview that is informed by a literal interpretation of the Bible on the other. The latter includes an understanding of gender as essentialist, that is, as having defining attributes. Religious beliefs in a rigid and unchangeable gender binary often also include the notion of “complementary differences” (see the Danvers Statement, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 1988, para. 2). Complementarianism holds that women and men fulfill different and complementary roles in the family. While these roles are supposed to be equally valued, the men are considered head of the family unit. An example of how gender is viewed as essentialist can be gleaned from the following blog post concerning a Boy Scout ceremony, published on a conservative Christian website: Understanding God’s gift of gender is a big deal to me, and I viewed the ceremony through that grid. I saw the glory of healthy, godly masculinity on display, particularly the goodness of men teaching boys to be men”. […] … I have long seen that women cannot imprint masculinity on a boy’s heart; we can confirm it, we can affirm it, we can clap and cheer for it, but we cannot imprint it. We don’t have what it takes, because God gives men that privilege. (Bohlin, 2014, para. 2, 9)

12 

D. H. DE JONG

Since, as is noted throughout this book, conservative Christians do not constitute a homogeneous demographic, it would be an omission not to mention an organization called CBE International, formed originally as Christians for Biblical Equality by a group of evangelicals in Minnesota. While subscribing to values that are firmly rooted in Scripture, CBE International is opposed to complementarianism and views patriarchy as “a result of sin” and “an abuse of power” (CBE International, n.d.). The conservative Christian belief in a rigid gender binary typically translates into a rejection of transgender and gender-variant identities, as demonstrated by the following quote from Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention: The transgender question means that conservative Christian congregations such as mine must teach what’s been handed down to us, that our maleness and femaleness points us to an even deeper reality, to the unity and complementarity of Christ and the church. A rejection of the goodness of those creational realities then is a revolt against God’s lordship, and against the picture of the gospel that God had embedded in the creation. (Moore, 2013, para. 7)

The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest evangelical denomination in the United States. Moore was one of the initial signatories of the “Nashville Statement”, a declaration about sexuality and gender formulated by the previously mentioned Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Article 7 of the Nashville Statement says: We affirm that self-conception as male or female should be defined by God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture. We deny that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption. (Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 2017)

Apparently, not all evangelicals are on board with the strident tone of the Nashville Statement. Preston Sprinkle (2017) is one of its critics. Sprinkle is a biblical scholar and public speaker, and the president of the Center for Faith, Sexuality and Gender. The center consists of a group of (evangelical) Christian pastors and theologians who, according to the center’s website, “aspire to be the Church’s most trusted source of theologically sound teaching and practical guidance on questions related to

2  CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF GENDER: FROM BIBLICAL TO QUEER 

13

sexuality and gender” (Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender, 2019). Among the resources that it has published is a 28-page “pastoral paper”, titled A Biblical Conversation About Transgender Identities (Sprinkle, n.d.). It is an interesting read in terms of learning about traditional interpretations of the Bible with respect to gender, even while couched in modern-sounding language. For example, on the one hand Sprinkle says: “Based on my reading of Scripture thus far, it appears that God intends for humans to identify as male and female, and that one’s sexed body is an essential part of this identity” (Sprinkle, n.d., p. 8). A few paragraphs later he adds: “None of this means that the Bible supports narrow cultural expectations of what it means to be male or female. The Bible is quite generous when it comes to how males and females are to express the gender of their biological sex” (Sprinkle, n.d., p. 8). It is a concession to more contemporary views that he repeats when stating: “God’s expectations for gender expression are quite flexible. Most modern assumptions and stereotypes about what it means to be a man or a woman are not endorsed by the Bible” (Sprinkle, n.d., p.  9). Thus, while equating gender with biological sex, the author provides an “acceptable” out for nonnormative expressions of gender identity. However, he does not endorse a deviation from the gender binary, given that, according to his reading of the book of Genesis, God created “male and female” (pp. 10–11). It is interesting to see how Sprinkle defends this position, even when trying to address such objections as the apostle Paul’s comment, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28; italics added), or when attempting to reason about people who are intersex (a result of the Fall, he says). Clearly, for Sprinkle, his interpretation of the words from Genesis stands no matter what. This rigidness with respect to ideas about gender is noteworthy when contrasted with more liberal interpretations of Biblical admonitions not to eat shellfish (Leviticus 11:10–11) or not to wear clothing made of mixed fibers (Leviticus 19:19), admonitions which many evangelicals would place in the cultural-historical context of when they were written. So, while Sprinkle admits that “we now know much more about sex and gender than the biblical writers” (Sprinkle, n.d., p. 16), he remains fervently opposed to medical interventions for gender dysphoria. Making an exception for intersex persons, he writes: But in the case of people who identify as transgender, whose biological sex is unambiguous and who have healthy bodies that don’t need to be altered,

14 

D. H. DE JONG

I don’t see any moral reason why they should attempt to change their biological sex. We should at least hold out the possibility that their internal sense of self might be wrong, while their body is right. In this case, I would suggest that the path most faithful to the way of Christ would be for the person to try to align their internal sense of self with their body. (Sprinkle, n.d., p. 22)

It is a statement that could be interpreted as a justification for reparative therapy. Thus, while. Sprinkle is trying to construct a bridge between the Church and gender-diverse people, it is difficult to see that attempt as truly welcoming. Another attempt to create a bridge between conservative Christians and the transgender community was made by Mark Yarhouse, until recently a psychology professor at Regent University, an evangelical Christian institution, now at evangelical Wheaton College. Yarhouse (2015) developed an “integrated” model for conceptualizing and understanding gender dysphoria from a (conservative) Christian perspective. His model consists of the “integrity framework” (an essentialist, binary view of gender, compatible with a conservative Christian interpretation of the Bible), the “disability framework”, also compatible with Scripture (gender dysphoria explained as resulting from “the Fall”—Adam and Eve’s rejection of God’s authority—but not a condition for which the individual is responsible), and the “diversity framework” (which allows for community among transgender people and, in its stronger form, challenges the gender binary). Elsewhere I have described that model as “a laudable effort to engage conservative Christians with transgender issues” (de Jong, 2017, p. 89), but critiqued it as internally inconsistent and incapable of integrating the three separate frameworks (the research reported on in Chap. 4 reinforces that critique). It should be noted that another Christian theologian, Megan DeFranza, who has written specifically about intersex persons (DeFranza, 2011), believes that there are more than two genders and has taken issue with Yarhouse’s explanation of gender diversity as resulting from the Fall (DeFranza, 2016). Reading about and talking with conservative Christians makes it clear that they are a heterogeneous group and that their church communities operate according to a spectrum of LGBTQ acceptance. Current terminology makes the following distinctions in evangelical Protestant communities of faith (Earp, n.d.): “Side A” is made up of Christians who are affirmative of same-sex relationships and gender-variant identities. Christian organizations that support this view include Soulforce, The

2  CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF GENDER: FROM BIBLICAL TO QUEER 

15

Reformation Project, and Q Christian Fellowship (formerly the Gay Christian Network). “Side B” consists of Christians who acknowledge and accept the reality of same-sex attraction and gender-variant identity, but consider them symptoms of the Fall and do not condone acting on them (i.e. as gay or lesbian persons they remain celibate or enter into a heterosexual marriage, and as gender-dysphoric individuals they do not pursue a gender transition). The Center for Faith, Sexuality, & Gender and Revoice are two organizations in this category. There is also a Catholic organization, Courage International, that aims to provide support to Catholics “who experience same-sex attractions and who have made a commitment to strive for chastity” (Courage International, n.d.). While its website does not state an explicit position on gender variance, adding “transgender” to the site’s search bar leads to a number of articles critical of the concept of a cross-gender identity and especially of medical interventions to achieve a gender transition. Another organization, Eden Invitation, also suggests that Catholics resist acting on same-sex attraction, while promoting “an integral unity of body and soul” and “a complementarity between man and woman” (“Sometimes You Need to Go Back”, n.d.). “Side X” refers to people and groups that belong to the ex-gay movement, which does not accept the notions of same-sex attraction or gender variance. While Side X’ers typically no longer support secular conversion therapy, they do believe that a spiritual conversion will lead to a heterosexual orientation or acceptance of one’s gender identity as determined at birth. The Southern Baptist Convention and The Gospel Coalition (a community of evangelical churches with both a US and an international online presence) represent this view. Generally, the positions of non-accepting Christians seem to have softened somewhat, especially in response to the harmful effects (homelessness, substance use, suicide) of parental rejection experienced by young teens who identify as queer. This gentler approach is illustrated by the following excerpt from a blog post regarding the “transgender debate” on the website of The Gospel Coalition: That means while we do not have patience for secular agendas, we must have patience for struggling people. We may be quick with rebuttals in the public square, but we must be quick with a listening ear in the neighbor’s kitchen. It means we must show private care in a way that is not confused with public indifference, and make known our public concern in a way that is not confused with private disdain. We have two different things to say depending on the context—not contradictory things, but complementary things the world is eager to confuse. (DeYoung, 2017, para. 12)

16 

D. H. DE JONG

In spite of this change in tone, it is quite clear that neither the side X nor the side B perspective is truly welcoming of LGBTQ+ people. And although some dialogue is occurring, tensions between the queer community and the majority of evangelical churches remain. Interestingly, unlike the “clobber passages” in the Bible that have been cited by conservative Christians in denouncing same-sex relationships (passages that have been explained quite differently by more liberal biblical scholars; see Gramick, 2016, and The Reformation Project, n.d.), only one verse has been identified as critical of gender-nonconforming behavior (Kearns, n.d.). This particular verse, Deuteronomy 22:5, admonishes against women wearing men’s clothing and vice versa. However, even this passage seems to be a rather superficial comment about gender expression, and irrelevant, since fashion has become much less gender specific. Also, it is quite possible to find Bible passages that are affirming of gender diversity. For example, in his book Transforming: The Bible & the Lives of Transgender Christians, Austen Hartke describes how he—and other transgender Christians whom he interviewed—have found validation of their gender identity in Scripture (Hartke, 2018; also see Tanis, 2003/2018). Moreover, as stated in a booklet published by the Human Rights Campaign, it can be argued that “there is the example of Jesus’ own ministry, which calls for a loving and affirming welcome to all peoples, from all walks of life” (“Coming Home”, n.d., p. 26). However, in the arena of public policy, such a conciliatory perspective is less evident, as religious freedom and transgender rights have been pitted against each other. Discussions about gender and faith are not limited to evangelical Protestant communities. They have been occurring in the Catholic Church as well, alongside debates about other “culture war issues” like same-sex marriage and abortion. Of white American Catholic voters, 60% voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential elections, suggesting that they tend to be less conservative than white Evangelical Protestants, 81% of whom voted for Trump (Markoe, 2016). Also, research indicates that a much smaller percentage of Catholics believe that gender is determined at birth than do white evangelicals (51% versus 84%, Smith, 2017). However, in spite of Pope Francis’s well-publicized meeting with a transgender man in 2016, it appears that the more liberal perspectives are found primarily among a segment of lay Catholics, while the church hierarchy, with some exceptions, adheres more rigidly to a conservative biblical doctrine about gender and criticizes alternative views as based on “gender ideology” (see Campoy, 2016). In an interview published on the Catholic news website

2  CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF GENDER: FROM BIBLICAL TO QUEER 

17

Crux, Catholic ethicist David Albert Jones described the Church’s main concerns about what has been called “gender ideology” or “gender theory”: Chief among these are a denial of the complementarity of male and female, a failure to recognise the goodness of the body and the unity of body and soul, a radical separation of the concepts of sex and gender, finally, the idea that gender identity is or ought to be a matter of personal choice. (Camosy, 2018, para. 17)

While the idea of a “gender ideology” has been around for several decades, it became much more talked about in the United States with the emergence of the discussion about gender identity (Case, 2019). This was demonstrated by the issuance of a document, titled “Created Male and Female: An Open Letter from Religious Leaders”, co-signed by four Catholic bishops and published on the website of the US Conference of Bishops. Here is part of the letter: Children especially are harmed when they are told that they can “change” their sex or, further, given hormones that will affect their development and possibly render them infertile as adults. Parents deserve better guidance on these important decisions, and we urge our medical institutions to honor the basic medical principle of “first, do no harm.” Gender ideology harms individuals and societies by sowing confusion and self-doubt. The state itself has a compelling interest, therefore, in maintaining policies that uphold the scientific fact of human biology and supporting the social institutions and norms that surround it. The movement today to enforce the false idea—that a man can be or become a woman or vice versa—is deeply troubling. It compels people to either go against reason—that is, to agree with something that is not true— or face ridicule, marginalization, and other forms of retaliation. (Bambera et al., 2017, para. 5, 6)

A news release on the same website notes the praise given by bishop Michael Barber of Oakland with regard to a subsequent report issued by the Vatican’s office that provides guidelines for Catholic education worldwide, titled “Male and Female He Created Them: Towards a Path of Dialogue on the Question of Gender Theory in Public Education” (Keane, 2019). The report—although not signed by the Pope—was the first explicit document on gender identity released by the Vatican (Congregation

18 

D. H. DE JONG

for Catholic Education, 2019). Critical of gender ideology and challenging the notion of gender variance, it was met with disappointment and dismay by transgender Catholics (Blondiau, 2019). Daniel Horan (2019), a Franciscan Friar, wrote a column in the National Catholic Reporter criticizing the report for its reference to “gender ideology” and its neglect of empirical evidence or theoretical considerations. Like others, he also expressed his disappointment with the tone of the report that—while calling for dialogue—seems to preclude any movement away from the Vatican’s traditional teachings about gender. On the other, more liberal end of the continuum in the Catholic Church are comments from Fr. James Martin, a Jesuit priest, who has called for “respect, compassion, and sensitivity”, and said: “I don’t understand the problem with letting transgender people use bathrooms that they feel comfortable in” (see Elliott, 2016, para. 19). Similarly, David Albert Jones, the previously mentioned Catholic ethicist, has stated the following in response to an interview question about how Catholics should view transgender people: In the case of divergent gender identity, we should not assume, as perhaps the question seems to assume, that someone expressing a deep-seated sense of gender identity is doing something sinful or objectively disordered. On the contrary, the person may be accepting his or her gender identity as something given by God. (Camosy, 2018, para. 26)

The idea of a physical gender transition has been particularly controversial in Catholic health care settings. For instance, a 2017 essay in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly ends with the following sentence: In sum, to truly heal wounds from the ground up as an exercise of the Church’s ministry and life, Catholic health care must swim against the current, proactively affirming the Christian understanding of the human person in medical practice while refusing to perform, allow, or deliberately facilitate any form of gender transitioning. (Di Camillo, 2017, p. 223)

In 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in a California court against Dignity Health (a Catholic health care system) on behalf of a transgender man whose scheduled hysterectomy was not allowed to go forward, and in September of 2019, an appellate court ruled that the hospital’s decision had violated the state’s nondiscrimination act (Meyer, 2019).

2  CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF GENDER: FROM BIBLICAL TO QUEER 

19

Catholic hospitals are guided by directives from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. However, according to an investigation by the New York Times, they typically are not very transparent about what procedures they will not permit, and in some cases may not even be easily identified as religiously affiliated facilities, due to name changes for the sake of marketing (Hafner, 2018). A rather nuanced position on gender transitions was expressed by Sister Mary Angela Shaughnessy, an attorney and a national expert on legal issues relative to Catholic education (in Shaughnessy & Huggings, 2016). With respect to the response of Catholic K-12 schools to transgender students, she seemed to question the conservative arguments against gender transitions. Thus, while the Catholic Church prohibits bodily mutilations except for therapeutic reasons, sister Shaughnessy asked what the term “therapeutic” means. And with respect to the catechismal admonition to accept one’s sex/gender as assigned at birth, she remarked that such a determination is sometimes hard to make. It may be noted that Catholic K-12 schools are generally not covered by Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, although those that participate in federal programs, like the School Lunch Program, are covered (Shatz, N., 2018). Also, while there are reports of employment discrimination by Catholic organizations, including schools, with respect to LGBTQ staff members (see Shine, 2019), a Catholic high school in San Francisco continued to employ a teacher who transitioned from female to male (Morris-Young, 2016). Moreover, a significant number of Catholic colleges and universities are—to varying degrees—supportive of transgender students and several of them now provide gender-inclusive housing (Buck, 2019; Hueston, 2019). As is the case for evangelical Protestants, the examples cited above illustrate that there are differing opinions among American Catholics with respect to the subject of gender identity. At the extreme, ideologically conservative (if not reactionary) end of the spectrum are organizations and websites like Church Militant, LifeSite (originally started by the Canadian Campaign Life Coalition, but influential in the United States), and the Lepanto Institute. On the other side of the continuum are organizations like New Ways Ministry, Dignity USA, and Call to Action, which advocate for the complete inclusion of LGBTQ Catholics. While the opposing views on this and other “culture war issues” are not yet considered worthy of a schism (see Douthat, 2019), the conservative arguments may turn off young Catholics. In that context, and for completeness sake,

20 

D. H. DE JONG

a brief reference may be made to developments in two other conservative Christian denominations. As of this writing, the Church of Latter-­day Saints—in part due to the negative response of young people to the harshness of Mormon LGBTQ policies—has begun to soften its rules, once again allowing the baptism of children from same-sex couples and transgender parents (Wamsley, 2019). However, in terms of theological dogma, the position of gay and transgender people in the Mormon Church remains extremely tenuous (Green, 2019). The Seventh-day Adventist Church is another Christian denomination whose members rely to a large extent on the Bible as a source of truth. While its membership is politically diverse, the Seventh-day Adventist Church does not condone same-sex relationships. It has not yet taken a clear position with respect to transgender issues. However, in 2015, Rhonda Dinwiddie, a transgender woman, was ordained as an elder in her Hollywood Seventh-day Adventist congregation (see Wright, 2016).

Queer Conceptions of Gender Contrasting with the essentialist view and with traditional notions of gender identity as fixed and gender as a culturally enforced binary classification system, Queer Theory provides an alternative framework. The emergence of Queer Theory followed new conceptualizations of gender in the 1980s as part of third-wave feminism. These new ideas were grounded in a framework of social construction, as in the phrase “doing gender”, described in this passage: Doing gender means creating differences between girls and boys and women and men, differences that are not natural, essential, or biological. Once the differences have been constructed, they are used to reinforce the “essentialness” of gender. [….] Many situations are not clearly sex categorized to begin with, nor is what transpires within them obviously gender relevant. Yet any social encounter can be pressed into service in the interest of doing gender. (West & Zimmerman, 1987, pp. 137–138)

As this quote suggests, social constructivist models of gender, especially in the context of a surge in identity politics, became themselves prone to charges of essentialism (see Gergen, 2001). Judith Butler, a postmodern feminist philosopher with an interest in intersectionality (i.e. the interplay

2  CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF GENDER: FROM BIBLICAL TO QUEER 

21

between various social identities that create a particular kind of marginalization), critiqued this development as follows: To prescribe an exclusive identification for a multiply constituted subject, as every subject is, is to enforce a reduction and a paralysis, and some feminist positions, including my own, have problematically prioritized gender as the identificatory site of political mobilization at the expense of race or sexuality or class or geopolitical positioning/displacement. (Butler, 1993, p. 78)

Elsewhere, Butler wrote about the “cultural framing” of notions regarding sex and gender: To understand gender as a historical category, however, is to accept that gender, understood as one way of culturally configuring a body, is open to a continual remaking, and that “anatomy” and “sex” are not without cultural framing (as the intersex movement has clearly shown). The very attribution of femininity to female bodies as if it were a natural or necessary property takes place within a normative framework in which the assignment of femininity to femaleness is one mechanism for the production of gender itself. (2004, pp. 9–10)

Butler (1990/1999) described gender as “performative” (Butler, 1999, pp. xv–xvi), socially constructed but with the subversive potential “to undo restrictively normative conceptions of sexual and gendered life” (Butler, 2004, p. 1). Emphasizing the flexibility of gender identity, Butler became one of the proponents of Queer Theory. As a critique of the link between “heteronormativity” (Warner, 1991, p. 14) and the binary model of gender, Queer Theory provides a radical alternative, as described in this quote: Access to the post-structuralist theories of identity as provisional and contingent, coupled with a growing awareness of the limitations of identity categories in terms of political representation, enabled queer to emerge as a new form of personal identification and political organization. (Jagose, 1996, pp. 77/78).

Clearly, Queer Theory is consistent with the lived experience of gender-­ variant people who reject binary and/or essentialist notions of behavior, role, or embodiment, as illustrated by the following comment from transgender historian Susan Stryker: We [transgender activists] argued that sexual orientation was not the only significant way to differ from heteronormativity—that homo, hetero, and bi

22 

D. H. DE JONG

in fact all depended on similar understandings of “man” and “woman”, which trans problematized. People with trans identities could describe themselves as men and women, too—or resist binary categorization all together—but in doing either they queered the dominant relationship of sexed body and gendered subject. (Stryker, 2008, pp. 146–147)

New theoretical conceptualizations of gender, along with the new research findings about gender identity mentioned in the previous chapter, are clearly at odds with traditional Biblical views. The contrast between these widely differing perspectives has implications in terms of public policy, particularly with respect to the conflict between transgender rights and religious liberty. Thus, as a backlash against the movement toward gender-­ neutral bathrooms, the legislatures in several states introduced “bathroom bills” that would mandate the continued segregation of restroom facilities based on gender assigned at birth (never clarifying how that would be determined). More explicit religious objections to the blurring of gender boundaries have come in the form of requests for Title IX exemptions by a large number of Christian institutions of higher education. Title IX pertains to federal legislation barring discrimination based on sex in education. By applying for exemptions, religiously affiliated schools have attempted to preempt requirements for accommodating transgender students with respect to bathroom facilities, locker rooms, and housing. Scores of such waivers—which can also cover areas like admissions and financial aid—have been granted, mostly to evangelical Protestant colleges and universities, but to a small number of conservative Catholic schools as well (Campus Pride, 2017; Pelletier, 2016). Title IX exemptions will be discussed further in Chap. 4, following an examination of the notion of religious liberty in the next chapter.

References Anderson, R. (2018, January 11). Challenges facing the church in 2018. Retrieved from http://www.breakpoint.org/2018/01/challenges-facingchurch-2018/#RyanTAnderson Bambera, J. C., Beach, F., Bradosky, J. F., Chaput, C. J., Conley, J. D., Guernsey, J. A. M., … Winter, P. (2017, December 15). Created male and female: An open letter from religious leaders. U.  S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Retrieved from http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/created-male-andfemale.cfm

2  CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF GENDER: FROM BIBLICAL TO QUEER 

23

Blondiau, E. (2019, June 12). 5 trans Catholics on the Vatican’s rejection of their gender identity. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/6/12/18661864/transgender-vatican-catholic-pope Bohlin, S. (2014, May 6). Boy scouts: Let’s hear it for masculinity. Retrieved from https://probe.org/boy-scouts-lets-hear-it-for-masculinity/ Buck, C. (2019, April 5). Seattle University institutes gender inclusive policies for student housing. Retrieved from https://www.newwaysministry. org/2019/04/05/seattle-university-institutes-gender-inclusive-policies-forstudent-housing/ Butler, J. (1990/1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex”. New York, NY: Routledge. Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York, NY: Routledge. Campoy, A. (2016, November 4). A conspiracy theory about sex and gender is being peddled around the world by the far right. Quartz. Retrieved from https://qz.com/807743/conservatives-have-created-a-fake-ideology-tocombat-the-global-movement-for-lgbti-rights/ Camosy, C.  C. (2018, July 26). Ethicist says Church teaching on gender ‘not incompatible’ with accepting trans identity. Crux. Retrieved from https:// cruxnow.com/interviews/2018/07/26/ethicist-says-church-teaching-ongender-not-incompatible-with-accepting-trans-identity/ Campbell, M., Hinton, D. X., & Anderson, J. R. (2019). A systematic review of the relationship between religion and attitudes toward transgender and gender-­ variant people. International Journal of Transgenderism, 20(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2018.1545149 Campus Pride. (2017, September 13). Campus pride releases 2017 shame list documenting “The absolute worst campuses for LGBTQ youth” in the nation. Retrieved from https://www.campuspride.org/2017shamelist/ Case, M. A. (2019). Trans formations in the Vatican’s war on “gender ideology”. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 44(3), 639–664. Retrieved from https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=13570& context=journal_articles CBE International. (n.d.). CBE’s mission and values. Christians for Biblical Equality International. Retrieved from https://www.cbeinternational.org/ content/cbes-mission Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender. (2019). About the center for faith, sexuality, and gender. Retrieved from https://www.centerforfaith.com/about Congregation for Catholic Education. (2019). Male and female he created them: Towards a path of dialogue on the question of gender theory in public education. Vatican City: Vatican Press. Retrieved from http:// www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/ rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20190202_maschio-e-femmina_en.pdf

24 

D. H. DE JONG

Coming Home. (n.d.). Coming home to evangelicalism and to self. Human rights campaign. Retrieved from https://www.hrc.org/resources/coming-hometo-evangelicalism-and-to-self Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. (1988). Danvers statement. Retrieved from https://cbmw.org/about/danvers-statement/ Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. (2017). Nashville statement. Retrieved from https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement/ Courage International. (n.d.). About courage. Retrieved from https://couragerc. org/about/ DeFranza, M. K. (2011). Intersex and Imago: Sex, gender, and sexuality in postmodern theological anthropology. Pro Quest Dissertations Publishing. DeFranza, M. K. (2016, March 11). Transgender 104: Reconsidering the scope of the fall. Retrieved from https://www.megandefranza.com/blog/2016/2/26/ transgender-104-reconsidering-the-scope-of-the-fall de Jong, D. (2017). “Living in the tension in-between”—Faculty members talk about faith and transgender issues in Christian social work programs. Social Work & Christianity, 44(3), 75–93. DeYoung, K. (2017, February 28). The two things we must say about the transgender debate. Retrieved from https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/the-two-things-we-must-say-about-the-transgender-debate/ Di Camillo, J.  A. (2017). Gender transitioning and Catholic health care. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 17(2), 213–223. Douthat, R. (2019, September 14). The slow road to Catholic schism. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/opinion/ sunday/the-slow-road-to-catholic-schism.html Earp, D. (n.d.). Side A/Side B theology primer. Retrieved from http://www. comingout4christians.net/side-a-side-b-primer.html Elliott, E. A. (2016, May 17). Fr. Jim Martin meets people where they are – online. National Catholic Reporter. Retrieved from https://www.ncronline.org/ news/people/fr-jim-martin-meets-people-where-they-are-online Gergen, K. J. (2001). Social construction in context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gramick, J. (2016). The Roman Catholic Church. In M. Copeland & D. Rose (Eds.), Struggling in good faith: LGBTQI inclusion from 13 American religious perspectives (pp. 155–158). Woodstock, VT: Skylight Paths. Green, E. (2019, April 7). The Mormon Church tries to create a little more space for LGBTQ families. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www. theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/04/lgbtq-mormons-latter-daysaints-apostasy-child-baptism/586630/ Hafner, K. (2018, August 10). As Catholic hospitals expand, so do limits on some procedures. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes. com/2018/08/10/health/catholic-hospitals-procedures.html

2  CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF GENDER: FROM BIBLICAL TO QUEER 

25

Hartke, A. (2017). Just as I am: Against the odds, transgender Christians persevere. Sojourner Magazine, June 2017. Retrieved from https://sojo.net/magazine/june-2017/just-i-am Hartke, A. (2018). Transforming: The bible and the lives of transgender Christians. Louisvillle, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Horan, D. (2019, June 26). What’s the path to true dialogue about gender in the church? National Catholic Reporter. Retrieved from https:// www.ncr online.org/news/opinion/faith-seeking-understanding/ whats-path-true-dialogue-about-gender-church Hueston, L. (2019, March 18). Gender-inclusive housing now an option at Saint Joseph’s University. Retrieved from https://www.newwaysministr y.org/2019/03/18/gender-inclusive-housing-now-an-optionat-saint-josephs-university/ Jagose, A. (1996). Queer theory: An introduction. New  York, NY: New  York University Press. Jones, R. P., Jackson, N., Najle, M., Bola, O., & Greenberg, D. (2019, June 10). America’s growing support for transgender rights. Public Religion Research Institute. Retrieved from https://www.prri.org/research/ americas-growing-support-for-transgender-rights/ Kanamori, Y., Pegors, T., Hulgus, J. F., & Cornelius-White, J. H. D. (2017). A comparison between self-identified evangelical Christians’ and nonreligious persons’ attitudes toward transgender persons. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 41(1), 75–86. Keane, J. (2019, June 11). U.S. Bishops’ chairman for Catholic education welcomes the release of male and female he created them. U.  S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Retrieved from http://www.usccb.org/news/2019/19-109.cfm Kearns, S. (n.d.). Transgender and Christian. Retrieved from https://www. queertheology.com/transgender-christian/ Lipka, M. (2016, October 3). Americans are divided over which public bathrooms transgender people should use. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/ fact-tank/2016/10/03/americans-are-divided-over-which-public-bathrooms-transgender-people-should-use/ Markoe, L. (2016, November 9). White evangelicals, Catholics and Mormons carried Trump. National Catholic Reporter. Retrieved from https://www.ncronline. org/news/politics/white-evangelicals-catholics-and-mormons-carried-trump Meyer, H. (2019, September 18). Catholic hospitals dealt blow in transgender discrimination case. Modern Healthcare. Retrieved from https:// www.moder nhealthcare.com/legal/catholic-hospitals-dealt-blowtransgender-discrimination-case Moore, R. (2013, August 12). Conservative Christianity and the transgender question. Retrieved from https://www.russellmoore.com/2013/08/12/ conservative-christianity-and-the-transgender-question/

26 

D. H. DE JONG

Morris-Young, D. (2016, May 12). Catholic school won’t fire transgender teacher. National Catholic Reporter. Retrieved from https://www.ncronline.org/ blogs/ncr-today/catholic-school-wont-fire-transgender-teacher Norton, A. T., & Herek, G. M. (2013). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward transgender people: Findings from a national probability sample of U.S. adults. Sex Roles, 68, 738–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0110-6 Pelletier, R. (2016, August 30). Four Catholic colleges make LGBT “shame list”. Retrieved from https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/ four-catholic-colleges-make-lgbt-shame-list Pew Research Center. (2016, September 28). Vast majority of Americans know someone who is gay, fewer know someone who is transgender. Retrieved from https://www.pewforum.org/2016/09/28/5-vast-majority-of-americansknow-someone-who-is-gay-fewer-know-someone-who-is-transgender/ Shatz, N. (2018, March 7). Beyond sports and sex part 4: When does title IX apply to religious schools? Retrieved from https://www.bostonlawyerblog.com/ beyond-sports-sex-part-4-title-ix-apply-religious-schools/ Shaughnessy, M. A., & Huggings, M. (2016). Transgender, sex and gender: Legal and medical issues. Momentum, 47(1), 48–51. Retrieved from https://search. proquest.com/docview/1763787190/fulltextPDF/1C78D5F1B7764AB7P Q/1?accountid=13858 Shine, R. (2019, August 15). High school that fired LGBTQ church workers now threatens critical students with expulsion. Retrieved from https://www.newwaysministry.org/2019/08/15/high-school-that-fired-lgbtq-church-workers-now-threatens-critical-students-with-expulsion/ Smith, G. A. (2017, November 27). Views of transgender issues divide along religious lines. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2017/11/27/views-of-transgender-issues-divide-along-religious-lines/ Sometimes You Need to Go Back. (n.d.). Who we are. Retrieved from https:// www.edeninvitation.com/four-first-things Sprinkle, P. (n.d.). A Biblical conversation about transgender identities. The center for faith, sexuality, and gender. Retrieved from https://centerforfaith.com/ sites/default/files/cfsg_pastoral_papers_12.pdf Sprinkle, P. (2017, September 3). My nashville statement. Retrieved from https:// www.prestonsprinkle.com/blog/2017/9/3/my-nashville-statement Stryker, S. (2008). Transgender history, homonormativity, and disciplinarity. Radical History Review, 100(Winter 2008), 144–157. https://doi. org/10.1215/01636545-2007-026 Tanis, J. (2003/2018). Trans-gender: Theology, ministry, and community. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. The Reformation Project. (n.d.). A brief Biblical case for LGBTQ inclusion. Retrieved from https://www.reformationproject.org/biblical-case

2  CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF GENDER: FROM BIBLICAL TO QUEER 

27

Wamsley, L. (2019, April 4). In major shift, LDS church rolls back controversial policies toward LGBT members. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https:// www.npr.org/2019/04/04/709988377/in-major-shift-mormon-churchrolls-back-controversial-policies-toward-lgbt-membe Warner, M. (1991). Introduction: Fear of a queer planet. Social Text, 29, 3–17. West, C., & Zimmerman, D.  H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151. Wright, J. (2016, January 17). The Seventh-day Adventist church and transgender people. Spectrum. Retrieved from https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2016/01/17/seventh-day-adventist-church-and-transgender-people Yarhouse, M. A. (2015). Understanding gender dysphoria: Navigating transgender issues in a changing culture. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

CHAPTER 3

Impact of Religious Freedom Policies on Transgender Rights

Abstract  This chapter provides an overview of the notion of religious freedom as it has been articulated in the law and by the courts, and in terms of its interpretation by way of public policies and administrative rules. It also describes the expansion of religious freedom protections under the Trump administration at the cost of transgender rights. Keywords  Religious Freedom Restoration Act • Equality Act • Trump administration Transgender (and nonbinary) persons have asserted the right to protection from discrimination under various statutes that forbid discrimination based on sex. On a federal level, this assertion was supported by the Obama administration, given the new reality of an increasing gender-­ variant population. However, many conservative Christians and conservative Christian institutions have resisted the legal reinterpretation of “sex”, as it opens the door to required accommodations that they perceive as contrary to their religious beliefs. In resisting these accommodations, they have typically relied on the legal concept of religious liberty. Religious liberty is a complex issue. The First Amendment of the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Constitution of the United States, n.d.). The question is: When does the protection of © The Author(s) 2020 D. H. de Jong, Conservative Christianity, Gender Identity, and Religious Liberty, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42393-3_3

29

30 

D. H. DE JONG

religious practice run afoul of the establishment clause, that is, the prohibition of government support for a specific religion? An expanded version of constitutionally guaranteed religious liberty has included not just the right to worship freely, but also the right to conduct one’s life in accordance with religious values, since they are considered significant in terms of identity formation and personal ethics. However, the Supreme Court, in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), deviated from this view when it upheld a decision by the state of Oregon denying unemployment benefits to two Native American substance abuse counselors who were fired for taking peyote during a religious ceremony. In part due to the outcry over this decision, Congress almost unanimously passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by Bill Clinton in 1993. In 1997 the Supreme Court declared that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not be applied to state-level litigation, but it continues to play a role in federal cases. According to the act, the government cannot “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability”, with the exception of a “compelling government interest” (Congress.Gov, n.d.). This understanding of religious freedom is manifested by the increased reliance on exemption clauses in existing legislation. This increase was noted well before the recent rush by conservative Christian colleges toward religious exemptions under Title IX (see Chap. 4), prompting John Witte Jr. of the Emory University Law School to speak of “a sort of religious affirmative action program” (quoted in Henriques, 2006). As noted, religious freedom is a complex concept, particularly with respect to its impact on people’s conduct. In an attempt at clarification, Alan Patten (2017) articulated a principle of religious liberty labeled “fair opportunity for self-determination”, meaning, “Each individual has a legitimate claim on the most extensive opportunity to pursue his or her ends that is justifiable given the reasonable claims of others” (p.  145). Patten notes that this principle differs from typical views of religious liberty which state that laws should not discriminate in terms of religious beliefs or place an unfair burden on religious practice, but admits that it may need further elaboration when evaluating certain conflicting claims. Unfortunately, recent history and current events indicate the ongoing difficulties in negotiating opposing claims. A review of Supreme Court cases illustrates the different perspectives that underlie the arguments surrounding religious freedom. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of acting dean Martinez of the Hastings

3  IMPACT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM POLICIES ON TRANSGENDER RIGHTS 

31

School of Law at the University of California, who had withheld club recognition of the Christian Legal Society at the school (see O’Brien, 2010). The Christian Legal Society did not admit LGBT members and dean Martinez decided that it could only qualify as an official club if it accepted anyone as a member, regardless of status or belief (the “all-comers policy”). The Christian Legal Society sued, arguing for a religious exemption, but by a 5:4 margin the Court upheld the law school’s decision. In 2014, the Supreme Court decided that Hobby Lobby, a private company owned by an evangelical Christian family, did not have to pay for contraception as part of its employees’ health insurance (De Vogue, 2014). Contraceptive coverage had previously been mandated for all insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act. The conservative 5:4 majority on the Court justified its opinion with reference to the “substantial burden”, mentioned in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that payment for contraception would place on the owners of the company. Criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision centered on the implication that private employers would henceforth be encouraged to impose their religious beliefs on their workers. The 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop case was another high-profile religious freedom case adjudicated by the Supreme Court (Liptak, 2018). In a 7:2 decision, the Court sided with baker Jack Philips, who—because of his religious beliefs—had refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. However, the decision was a narrow one, based on a finding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had acted with hostility toward religion, as prohibited by the First Amendment, in bringing the case against Philips. In this case, the Court clearly shied away from ruling on the merits of religious freedom. Mindful of the Smith case that, while controversial, set precedent in terms of prioritizing general law over individual religious conduct, it has seemed reluctant to make dramatic decisions regarding religious freedom. However, with the recent addition of two conservative justices, this approach may change. As a side note: In the fall of 2019, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman fired from her job as a funeral director after she transitioned (Liptak, 2019). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Ms. Stephens, stating that her rights had been violated under Amendment VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on sex. Arguing that this category does not provide anti-discrimination protection to transgender people, the funeral home appealed the judgment. While this is not a religious liberty case, it does have potential implications for similar litigation

32 

D. H. DE JONG

pitting anti-discrimination against religiously based arguments about sex and gender. It could also have far-reaching effects in terms of possible “gender policing” (Mahdawi, 2019). As discussed in the second part of this chapter, new rules and policies promulgated by the Trump administration and its Justice Department support the narrow interpretation of sex, thereby eliminating transgender protections. In 2016, the US Commission on Civil Rights weighed in on the conflict between nondiscrimination and religious freedom. It issued a report noting “the often-stark differences in views of religious rights” (p.  17), but endorsing the Supreme Court decision in the Smith case (i.e. reinforcing the notion that religious freedom covers beliefs, not conduct). The commission also made clear its support for nondiscrimination laws and policies, as exemplified by comments and recommendations like the following: 1. Overly-broad religious exemptions unduly burden nondiscrimination laws and policies. Federal and state courts, lawmakers, and policy-makers at every level must tailor religious exceptions to civil liberties and civil rights protections as narrowly as applicable law requires. 2. RFRA protects only religious practitioners’ First Amendment free exercise rights, and it does not limit others’ freedom from government-­ imposed religious limitations under the Establishment Clause. (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2016)

Not surprisingly, the findings and recommendations of the Commission were severely criticized by conservative religious leaders. For instance, an article on the website of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention labeled the report “a stunning devaluation of religious liberty” (Walker & Wester, 2016). And a response from Archbishop Lori of Baltimore, who was chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCR), concluded that a statement by the then chair of the US Commission on Civil Rights in conjunction with the report’s release “suggests that the USCCR does not see the United States as a pluralistic society” (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2016). In the legislative arena, religious liberty has been a focus of initiatives at both the state and federal levels. A bill introduced by Republican lawmakers in Congress in 2015, the First Amendment Defense Act, would provide protection for individuals and organizations that discriminate against

3  IMPACT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM POLICIES ON TRANSGENDER RIGHTS 

33

same-sex couples on religious grounds (Goodstein & Liptak, 2015). Also, in April 2019, three Republican senators introduced the Equal Campus Access Act, which would take away federal funds from any college or university that discriminates against religious student groups (GovTrack.us., 2019). Additionally, several state legislatures have passed “In God We Trust” bills, while other religious freedom initiatives are being planned (Blinder & Robertson, 2016; Clarkson, 2018; Swaak, 2018; Taylor, 2019). Joining forces in Project Blitz, conservative national organizations and state lawmakers have collaborated in these efforts, using detailed guidelines that spell out model legislation (Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation, 2018). Bills that limit or could limit bathroom access based on gender identity passed in North Carolina (later revised through settlement; Levin, 2019) and Mississippi (Kennedy, 2018) and continue to be a threat in the Texas legislature (Allen, 2019). Moreover, at the time of this writing (late fall 2019), conservative legislators in Georgia, Texas, and Kentucky have announced proposals to outlaw all medical interventions that facilitate gender transitions for persons under the age of 18, including the reversible treatment with puberty blockers (Fitzsimons, 2019d). Such legislation would have devastating consequences for gender-dysphoric youth and is firmly opposed by professional health care and counseling associations. In terms of political strategy, some conservative Christians opposed to transgender rights have suggested an approach of “divide and conquer” in order to separate lesbian, gay, and bisexual advocates from transgender activists (Montgomery, 2017). This suggestion was an obvious attempt to reignite the sometimes-strained relationship that existed between transgender and gay people in the past. Radical feminist lesbians have historically been quite hostile toward the transgender movement and transgender activists have sometimes accused the gay community of “throwing them under the bus” in order to obtain rights like same-sex marriage and open acceptance in the military (Greer, 2018; also see Fitzsimons, 2019a). On the other side of the conflict, in 2017 Democrats in the House and Senate introduced the Do No Harm Act, an amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which would explicitly prohibit the intrusion of religious limitations on civil rights. This piece of legislation is supported by the American Civil Liberties Union. According to a blog post on its website, limits on religious liberty “to achieve a compelling government interest, such as prohibiting discrimination” (Thompson, 2019, para. 3) were always supposed to be part of the Religious Freedom Restoration

34 

D. H. DE JONG

Act. The Do No Harm Act was reintroduced to Congress in 2019. Meanwhile, about half the states and many municipalities have passed legislation protecting LGBT rights. Also, on the federal level, the Democratically controlled House of Representatives passed the Equality Act in May 2019. This Act amends Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. The Equality Act was preceded by the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which more narrowly prohibited LGBT discrimination in employment and which passed the Senate in 2013, but not the House. Following passage of the Equality Act by the House of Representatives, three bishops, including Archbishop Kurtz of Louisville, who headed the Committee for Religious Liberty of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote a letter to members of the US Senate asking them to oppose it. Citing the implications of the Equality Act with respect to transgender health care and access to bathrooms, locker rooms, and shelter facilities, the bishops argued that the provisions of the Equality Act would be “to the detriment of society as a whole” (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2019; para. 3; they stated objections to protections based on sexual orientation as well). The Trump administration has also expressed its opposition to the act, arguing that it would endanger women and girls in facilities that have been sex-segregated, that it would force medical professionals to provide treatment they might reject morally, and that it would mandate schools to make discussion about gender identity part of their sex education programs (Edmondson, 2019). As outlined below, this opposition by the administration has been part of a broader agenda attacking LGBTQ rights and appeasing conservative Christian voters. Attempts at a formal reconciliation between LGBTQ and religious rights should be noted. Thus, as a purported compromise, the Utah legislature passed a bill in 2015, banning the discrimination of LGBT people in employment and housing, while also protecting the rights of religiously affiliated organizations, including the Boy Scouts (Goodstein, 2015). Known as the “Utah Compromise”, the bill was lauded as well as criticized by both sides. Additional proposals for legislative compromise have included suggestions to allow exceptions to LGBT protections if (1) they are made public, so consumers are informed, and (2) alternative service providers are available (see Berg, 2018). Clearly, these very limited solutions are not satisfactory to many advocates of LGBT rights. Another attempt at compromise was made by the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), in cooperation with the

3  IMPACT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM POLICIES ON TRANSGENDER RIGHTS 

35

National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). The two organizations tried to develop a strategy, “Fairness for All”, aimed at protecting religious liberty in the context of nondiscrimination legislation (Shellnutt, 2016). However, this initiative was subsequently rejected by almost 90 leaders from evangelical and Catholic institutions and organizations who signed a statement titled “Preserve Freedom, Reject Coercion” (Shellnutt, 2017). The CCCU and NAE have continued to advocate for “fairness for all” (along the lines of the Utah Compromise). For the CCCU, the issue is in part one of survival, since legislation that prohibits LGBTQ discrimination is viewed as a potential threat to the very existence of its member institutions. As an article in the CCCU magazine noted: One thing has become increasingly apparent over the past few years: When LGBTQ protections go up against religious freedom, LGBTQ protections usually win in both the court of law and the court of public opinion. (LoMaglio, 2017, p. 23)

Demise of Transgender Rights Under the Trump Administration Since 2017, the conservatives’ fight for religious freedom and—by extension—against transgender rights, has been helped in significant measure by the Trump administration. This collaboration resulted from the support of evangelicals for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, which was one of the interesting phenomena of the 2016 elections, given his personal history and prior policy positions (Gabriel, 2016). Following a win over Texas Senator Ted Cruz in the South Carolina Primary, Trump started to talk more about issues of faith and family in order to increase and consolidate his political base (Parker, 2016). The election results showed that white evangelicals, accounting for 26% of the electorate, voted overwhelmingly (81%) for Trump, while 60% of white Catholics did so (Markoe, 2016). President Trump has continued to court this important segment of his base by nominating two conservative judges for the Supreme Court, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital (consistent with Evangelical narratives about Jesus’s return to earth), and by policy initiatives aimed at protecting religious freedom (McCarthy, 2019) Among these initiatives have been a significant number of policy changes that reduced the still-fresh protections won by transgender and genderqueer

36 

D. H. DE JONG

activists. This unraveling of transgender rights started as soon as the Trump administration took office. In February 2017, the federal Department of Education revoked Obama-era guidelines for the protection of transgender students in education settings provided under Title IX (Kreighbaum, 2017). In March, the government announced that it would not collect census data on the LGBT population (O’Hara, 2017) and that the Department of Health and Human Services would discontinue collecting some of this information (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2017), moves that will limit knowledge of the needs in the transgender community. In February 2018, the Department of Education announced that it would no longer investigate complaints from transgender students who are denied use of bathrooms consistent with their gender identity (Holden, 2018). In May that year, the Federal Bureau of Prisons reinstated a policy of housing federal inmates based on gender assigned at birth, except for “rare cases”, a change illegal under the Prison Rape Elimination Act, according to the National Center for Transgender Equality (Gathright, 2018). In October 2018, it was reported that the Trump administration had been lobbying officials at the United Nations to change language in documents with the term “gender” to binary wording related to biological sex (Borger, 2018). Along the same lines, in May 2019 the administration announced a new panel (the Commission on Unalienable Rights) that will advise the Secretary of State on human rights issues from a “natural law” perspective, which includes a religiously based binary view of gender (Finnegan, 2019). Earlier, a memo from the Department of Health and Human Services revealed plans to redefine sex under Title IX as binary and based on genital anatomy at birth, essentially writing gender identity out of the regulations issued under President Obama (Green, Benner, & Pear, 2018). In April 2019, the transgender military ban went into effect, a reversal from the 2016 policy implemented under President Obama that allowed transgender soldiers to serve openly (Jackson & Kube, 2019). The following month, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed a new policy that would allow homeless shelters to assign transgender people to facilities based on sex assigned at birth, reversing the “equal-­ access rule” from the Obama administration (Fitzsimons, 2019b). Also in May 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services stated that it would provide increased latitude in its “conscience rule” for health care personnel who oppose certain interventions (like transgender care) on

3  IMPACT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM POLICIES ON TRANSGENDER RIGHTS 

37

religious grounds (Kodjak, 2019), and proposed the elimination of gender identity as a protected class under the Affordable Care Act (Kodjak & Wroth, 2019). In August 2019, the Department of Labor proposed that employers contracting with the federal government can invoke their religious beliefs in discriminating against workers (affecting LGBTQ persons, among other populations), while the Department of Justice filed a legal brief in the Aimee Stephens case suggesting that transgender people are not protected from employment discrimination (Fitzsimons, 2019c; Sopelsa & Moreau, 2019). Furthermore, on November 1, 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a proposed rule according to which the protection of LGBTQ rights, implemented during the Obama administration, would no longer be required as part of any of its grants (Cha, 2019). Based on concerns about religious liberty, the rule could affect such programs as foster care and adoption services, as well as shelter programs, by discriminating against LGBTQ parents and the large proportion of homeless youth who identify as LGBTQ. The scope of the changes in rules and policies affecting transgender rights seems to give credence to the claim by activists that it has been a goal of the Trump administration to make the transgender population once again invisible. This must be understood as a cynical political ploy, entailing real harm to the transgender community. The discussion in this chapter about religious freedom raises a number of questions: Does the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom pertain to thought and assembly, or does it extend to conduct “out in the world”? Are Christians in the United States a beleaguered group that needs special dispensation from democratically enacted laws? Do religious exemptions from those laws run afoul of the First Amendment’s establishment clause? Also, since religious exemptions stop at the point where the government can assert a “compelling interest” (see Volokh, 2014), would the protection of marginalized individuals fall in that rubric and thus negate exemptions to the law? Clearly, there is significant disagreement about the answers to these questions and religious liberty issues continue to make the news in terms of legislation and litigation in such areas as services to gay clients, adoption by same-sex couples, coverage of contraceptive services in health insurance plans, health care for transgender patients, access to bathrooms consistent with affirmed gender identity, and Title IX exemptions for religiously affiliated colleges. The next chapter will take a closer look at this last issue of Title IX exemptions in faith-based higher education. These exemptions are aimed

38 

D. H. DE JONG

in large measure at circumventing accommodations for transgender students. The chapter will include a report on research regarding social work education in conservative Christian schools, which—as a case study—illustrates the value conflicts that can accompany the discourse surrounding religious liberty.

References Allen, S. (2019, January 4). Here are the worst anti-LGBT bills to watch for in 2019. The daily beast. Retrieved from https://www.thedailybeast.com/ here-are-the-worst-anti-lgbt-bills-to-watch-for-in-2019 Berg, T. C. (2018). Religious freedom and nondiscrimination. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 50(1), 181–209. Blinder, A., & Robertson, C. (2016, March 3). Conservative lawmakers push new legal protections for opponents of gay rights. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/gay-rights-religious-freedomlegislation-states.html Borger, J. (2018, October 25). Trump administration wants to remove “gender” from UN human rights documents. The guardian. Retrieved from https:// www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/24/trump-administration-gendertransgender-united-nations Cha, A. E. (2019, November 1). Proposed HHS rule would strip Obama-era protections for LGBTQ individuals. Washington Post. Retrieved from https:// www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/11/01/new-hhs-rule-wouldstrip-obama-era-protections-lgbtq-individuals/ Clarkson, F. (2018, April 27). “Project Blitz” seeks to do for Christian nationalism what Alec does for big business. Religion Dispatches (Rewire News). Retrieved from http://religiondispatches.org/project-blitz-seeks-to-do-for-christiannationalism-what-alec-does-for-big-business/ Congress.Gov. (n.d.). H.R. 1308—Religious freedom restoration act of 1993. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/1308 Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation. (2018). Report and analysis on religious freedom measures impacting prayer and faith in America (2018–2019 version): Legislation, proclamations, talking points, notes, fact sheets. Chesapeake, VA: Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.au. org/sites/default/files/2019-01/Project%20Blitz%20Playbook%20 2018-19.pdf Constitution of the United States. (n.d.). The constitution of the United States. The bill of rights & all amendments. Retrieved from https://constitutionus.com/

3  IMPACT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM POLICIES ON TRANSGENDER RIGHTS 

39

De Vogue, A. (2014, January 30). Hobby lobby wins contraceptive ruling in Supreme Court. ABC news. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ hobby-lobby-wins-contraceptive-ruling-supreme-court/story?id=24364311 Edmondson, C. (2019, May 17). House equality act extends civil rights protections to gay and transgender people. New York Times. Retrieved from https:// www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/us/politics/equality-act.html Finnegan, C. (2019, May 31). State department panel to redefine human rights based on “natural law and natural rights”. ABC news. Retrieved from https:// abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-dept-panel-redefine-human-rights-based-natural/story?id=63400485 Fitzsimons, T. (2019a, January 29). Conservative group hosts anti-transgender panel of feminists ‘from the left’. NBC news. Retrieved from https://www. nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/conservative-group-hosts-anti-transgenderpanel-feminists-left-n964246 Fitzsimons, T. (2019b, May 23). Trump administration’s proposal could place homes trans women in men’s shelters. NBC news. Retrieved from https:// www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-admin-s-proposal-couldplace-homeless-trans-women-men-n1009346 Fitzsimons, T. (2019c, August 14). Labor Dept. proposes expanding ‘religious exemption’ in hiring. NBC news. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/ feature/nbc-out/proposed-rule-trump-administration-would-allow-morebusinesses-discriminate-n1042416 Fitzsimons, T. (2019d, November 1). GOP lawmakers in three states want to ban trans health care for minors. NBC news. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/gop-lawmakers-three-states-want-bantrans-health-care-minors-n1075361 Gabriel, T. (2016, February 27). Donald Trump, despite impieties, wins hearts of evangelical voters. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes. com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-despite-impieties-wins-heartsof-evangelical-voters.html Gathright, J. (2018, May 12). The guidelines for protection of transgender prisoners just got rewritten. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www. npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/12/610692321/the-guidelines-forprotection-of-transgender-prisoners-just-got-rewritten Goodstein, L. (2015, March 12). Utah passes antidiscrimination bill backed by Mormon leaders. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes. com/2015/03/12/us/politics/utah-passes-antidiscrimination-bill-backedby-mormon-leaders.html?partner=socialflow&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=2 Goodstein, L. & Liptak, A. (2015, June 24). Schools fear impact of gay marriage ruling on tax exemptions. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www. nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/schools-fear-impact-of-gay-marriage-rulingon-tax-status.html?module=inline

40 

D. H. DE JONG

GovTrack.us. (2019). S. 1168—116th Congress: Equal campus access Act of 2019. GovTrack.us. Retrieved from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/ bills/116/s1168 Green, E. L., Benner, K., & Pear, R. (2018, October 21). ‘Transgender’ could be defined out of existence under Trump administration. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html Greer, E. (2018, October 29). Powerful gay rights groups excluded trans people for decades—Leaving them vulnerable to Trump’s attack. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/29/ trumps-attack-trans-people-should-be-wake-up-call-mainstream-gayrights-movement/ Henriques, D.  B. (2006, October 8). As exemptions grow, religion outweighs regulation. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes. com/2006/10/08/business/08religious.html Holden, D. (2018, February 12). The education department officially says it will reject transgender student bathroom complaints. Buzzfeed news. Retrieved from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/dominicholden/edu-dept-transstudent-bathrooms#.gy3JDox53 Jackson, H. & Kube, C. (2019, April 12). Trump’s controversial military policy goes into effect. NBC news. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-s-controversial-transgender-militar y-policy-goeseffect-n993826 Kennedy, M. (2018, January 8). Controversial Mississippi law limiting LGBT rights not heading to Supreme Court. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/08/576500364/ controversial-mississippi-law-limiting-lgbt-rights-not-heading-tosupreme-court Kodjak, A. (2019, May 2). New Trump rule protects health care workers who refuse care for religious reasons. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/05/02/688260025/ new-trump-rule-protects-health-care-workers-who-refuse-care-for-religious-reason Kodjak, A., & Wroth, C. (2019, May 24). Trump administration proposes rule to reverse protections for transgender patients. National public radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/05/24/726552816/ trump-administration-proposes-rule-to-reverse-protections-for-transgender-patien Kreighbaum, A. (2017, February 23). Transgender protections withdrawn. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/ 23/trump-administration-reverses-title-ix-guidance-transgender-protections

3  IMPACT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM POLICIES ON TRANSGENDER RIGHTS 

41

Levin, D. (2019, June 23). North Carolina reaches settlement on ‘bathroom bill’. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/23/ us/north-carolina-transgender-bathrooms.html Liptak, A. (2018, June 4). In narrow decision, Supreme Court sides with baker who turned away gay couple. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www. nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-bakerwho-turned-away-gay-couple.html Liptak, A. (2019, April 22). Supreme Court to decide whether landmark civil rights law applies to gay and transgender workers. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/us/politics/supreme-courtgay-transgender-employees.html LoMaglio, S. D. (2017). Fairness for all. Advances, spring 2017, 20–26. Retrieved from https://www.cccu.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17_Spring Advance_FULL_Lo-res.pdf Mahdawi, A. (2019, October 9). The US decision on LGBT workers could turn employers into the gender police. The guardian. Retrieved from https://www. theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/09/the-us-decision-on-lgbt-workerscould-turn-employers-into-the-gender-police Markoe, L. (2016, November 9). White evangelicals, Catholics and Mormons carried Trump. National catholic reporter. Retrieved from https://www.ncronline.org/news/politics/white-evangelicals-catholics-and-mormonscarried-trump McCarthy, T. (2019, July 7). Faith and freedoms: Why evangelicals profess unwavering love for Trump. The guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/07/donald-trump-evangelical-supporters Montgomery, P. (2017, October 19). Values voter summit panelist: ‘Divide & conquer’ to defeat ‘totalitarian’ trans inclusion policies. People for the American Way. Retrieved from http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/values-votersummit-panelist-divide-conquer-to-defeat-totalitarian-trans-inclusion-policies/ O’Brien, T. (2010, April 16). Christian legal society v. Martinez. Religion & ethics newsweekly. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2010/04/16/april-16-2010-christian-legal-society-v-martinez/6109/ O’Hara, M. E. (2017, March 29). LGBTQ Americans won’t be counted in 2020 U.S. Census after al. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/ feature/nbc-out/lgbtq-americans-won-t-be-counted-2020-u-s-censusn739911 Parker, A. (2016, June 10). Donald Trump, courting evangelicals, faults Hillary Clinton’s policies and character. New York Times. Retrieved from https:// www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/us/politics/donald-trump-evangelicalchristians.html

42 

D. H. DE JONG

Patten, A. (2017). The normative logic of religious liberty. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 25(2), 129–154. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/epdf/10.1111/jopp.12110 Shellnutt, K. (2016, December 8). Fairness for all: Evangelicals explore truce on LGBT and religious rights. Christianity today. Retrieved from https://www. christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/december-web-only/fairness-for-all-evangelicals-explore-truce-lgbt-cccu-nae.html) Shellnutt, K. (2017, January 12). No middle ground: Evangelical leaders reject compromise on LGBT and religious rights; Christianity today. Retrieved from https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/january/evangelical-leadersreject-compromise-lgbt-rights-sogi.html Sopelsa, B., & Moreau, J. (2019, August 16). Trans workers not protected by civil rights law, Trump admin tells Supreme Court. NBC news. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-workers-not-protected-civilrights-law-trump-admin-tells-n1043556 Swaak, T. (2018, September 1). ‘In God we trust’: Several states pass bills requiring (or allowing) motto’s display in schools. Forbes. Retrieved from https:// www.forbes.com/sites/the74/2018/09/01/in-god-we-trust-several-states-pass-billsrequiring-or-allowing-mottos-display-in-schools/#6bab3a2145d2 Taylor, D. (2019, January 14). ‘In God we trust’—The bills Christian nationalists hope will ‘protect religious freedom’. The guardian. Retrieved from https:// www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/14/christian-nationalists-billsreligious-freedom-project-blitz Thompson, I. (2019, February 28). In an era of religious refusals, the do no harm act is an essential safeguard. American civil liberties union. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/blog/religious-liberty/using-religion-discriminate/ era-religious-refusals-do-no-harm-act-essential U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2016). Peaceful coexistence: Reconciling nondiscrimination principles with civil liberties. Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Retrieved from https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/docs/PeacefulCoexistence-09-07-16.PDF U.S.  Conference of Catholic Bishops. (2016, September 13). USCCB religious liberty chairman responds to statement of chairman of US commission on civil rights. Retrieved from http://www.usccb.org/news/2016/16-117.cfm U.S.  Conference of Catholic Bishops. (2019, March 29). Letter to U.S.  Senate. Retrieved from http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/upload/Equality-ActLetter-to-Congress-Senate-1.pdf Union of Concerned Scientists. (2017, September 12). HHS rolls back LGBT data collection. Union of Concerned Scientists, Center for science and democracy. Retrieved from https://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/ attacks-on-science/hhs-rolls-back-lgbt-data-collection

3  IMPACT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM POLICIES ON TRANSGENDER RIGHTS 

43

Volokh, E. (2014, March 24). Religious exemptions—A guide for the confused. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/24/religious-exemptions-aguide-for-the-confused/ Walker, A., & Wester, J. (2016, September 16). Discriminatory overreach: Civil rights commission attacks religious freedom. Ethics and religious liberty ­commission. Retrieved from https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/ discriminatory-overreach-civil-rights-commission-attacks-religious-freedom

CHAPTER 4

Exemptions to Title IX: Religious Liberty in Higher Education

Abstract  This chapter discusses how colleges and universities have used religious exemptions to Title IX (which prohibits discrimination based on sex in educational settings) to circumvent accommodations for transgender students. It also reports on the author’s research regarding social work education programs in conservative Christian schools. These programs are of interest as a specific case of the conflict between religious, personal, and professional values, due to social work’s Code of Ethics, which specifically prohibits discrimination based on—among other variables—gender identity and gender expression. Keywords  Title IX exemptions • Christian social work education • Virtue Ethics • Ethics of Care • Yarhouse’s “integrated” framework • Ambivalence Almost all colleges, including private and religiously affiliated colleges, receive some form of federal aid, such as student grants and loans, and research and construction grants. Title IX is an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex in

Some of the research summarized in this chapter previously appeared in expanded form in Social Work & Christianity, published by the North American Association of Christians in Social Work. © The Author(s) 2020 D. H. de Jong, Conservative Christianity, Gender Identity, and Religious Liberty, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42393-3_4

45

46 

D. H. DE JONG

educational institutions that receive federal aid and mandates these schools to report and respond to incidents of sexual assault. One exemption in Title IX allows private undergraduate programs to exist as single-sex schools; it also makes this allowance for public institutions that have been single-sex schools on a continuous basis since their founding (see U.S. House of Representatives, n.d.). It should be noted that single-sex colleges recently have been under increasing pressure to revise their policies in order to admit and accommodate gender-variant students. Other exemptions from specific clauses of Title IX are allowed if the educational institution is “controlled by a religious organization” and if the provisions of title IX create a conflict with the “religious tenets” of that organization (see U.S. House of Representatives, n.d.). In this regard, exemptions can apply to admissions, financial assistance, housing, athletics, access to campus services, and employment (Exemptions from Title IX, n.d.). Additionally, faith-based colleges also have had a religious exemption from nondiscrimination with respect to employment under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (see Brougher, 2011). Title IX was signed into law in 1972, but it took until 1975 for the rules regarding religious exemptions to be finalized by the Department of Education (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.-a). Historically, requests for religious exemptions often involved the ability of religious institutions to exclude students and employees in cases of extramarital sex, pregnancy, and abortion (see Lee, 2016). However, this pattern changed when, under the Obama administration, the Office of Civil Rights in the Education Department began to take action against school districts that had been accused of discriminating against transgender students. In May 2016, the administration issued formal guidance according to which gender identity was included as a protective class under Title IX (U.S.  Departments of Justice and Education, 2016). These developments led to a dramatic increase in requests for exemptions to Title IX on religious grounds, submitted by conservative Christian institutions of higher education, primarily to resist accommodations for transgender students in terms of access to housing and other sex-segregated spaces and with regard to participation in sports. Other provisions from which exemptions have been sought concern recruitment, admissions, financial aid, and counseling. Besides gender identity, the exemptions also targeted sexual orientation, particularly after same-sex marriage was legalized in the United States in 2015. The Human Rights Campaign protested the process by which religious exemptions were granted, since it was not transparent and left students

4  EXEMPTIONS TO TITLE IX: RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

47

and prospective students uninformed as to the possibility of sanctions due to gender identity or sexual orientation (Human Rights Campaign, 2015). Subsequently, the Obama administration published a list of colleges and universities that had applied for the religious exemptions, which became known as the “shame list” (Department of Education, n.d.-b). However, some critics suggested that the protest by the Human Rights Campaign did not go far enough and that institutions in receipt of public funds simply should not be allowed to discriminate (Green, 2016). Toward the end of 2018, President Trump’s Education Secretary Betsy DeVos proposed eliminating the requirement that colleges formally apply for a religious exemption, arguing that the exemption already exists in the Title IX statute (Kingkade, 2018). Under the new rules, colleges can still ask the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education for a document “assuring” the legal exemption. However, the changes proposed by Secretary DeVos would seem to again limit information for students in regard to any discriminatory practices based on sexual orientation or gender identity at their school. While the “shame list” as such was not added to under the Trump administration, the webpage of the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education currently shows a running list of the correspondence between that office and various colleges with regard to religious exemptions (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.-c). Also, the advocacy group Campus Pride published an updated “shame list” in April 2019, indicating that 113 institutions had received religious exemptions, while applications of two others were pending (Campus Pride, 2019). In terms of access to information about religious exemptions, action at the state level should be noted as well. Thus, in October 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill requiring colleges in California that receive state aid to publicly acknowledge exemptions to Title IX. That bill was, in fact, a revised version of proposed legislation that would have enabled students to initiate legal action if they experienced discrimination. This, in turn, could have resulted in some religiously affiliated colleges, fearing litigation, to stop accepting students receiving state grants. Considered an existential threat, intense lobbying by conservative Christian institutions and organizations led to the modification of the original proposal (Siripurapu, 2016). Interestingly, several advocacy groups (like Campus Pride) have asked the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to ban colleges that have applied for religious exemptions, but it allows colleges to participate while adhering to their own “institutional values” (New, 2016). This in

48 

D. H. DE JONG

spite of the fact that the NCAA previously opposed a religious freedom law passed in Indiana, where the NCAA is headquartered, and temporarily pulled post-season competition from North Carolina and threatened to do the same in Texas because of so-called bathroom bills (prohibiting transgender persons from using the restroom that corresponds with their affirmed gender identity).

Transgender Issues and Christian Social Work Education A specific case of the potential conflict between transgender rights and religious liberty in higher education concerns certain programs that prepare students for a career in social work. The profession of social work has a Code of Ethics that states: Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical ability. (National Association of Social Workers, 2017, Ethical Standard 4.02)

Prospective social workers receive their training in programs accredited by the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). Clearly, these programs need to adhere to the ethical standards of the profession, including the standard of nondiscrimination. Research I conducted (de Jong, 2017a) revealed that almost 10% of the more than 500 accredited Bachelor of Social Work programs in the country were housed in schools belonging to the conservative Council for Christian Colleges and Universities CCCU. Given the potential conflict between religious values and the nondiscrimination standard of the social work profession, I started to dig deeper to learn about the beliefs and practices of social workers who identify as Christian, and about social work educators and students in institutions with a conservative Christian affiliation. Given that social work is a values-based profession, it is not surprising that a thriving faith-based professional organization, the North American Association of Christians in Social Work (NACSW), exists alongside its larger secular sibling, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW). There is also a smaller Catholic Social Workers’ National Association, which appears to be strongly aligned with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and advocates for similar policy positions: pro-life, against

4  EXEMPTIONS TO TITLE IX: RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

49

same-­sex marriage and “gender ideology”, and in favor of religious liberty (Catholic Social Workers’ National Association, n.d.). The NACSW is an organization that aims to “integrate Christian faith and professional social work practice” (North American Association of Christians in Social Work, n.d.). Members of the NACSW come from a range of denominations. However, the organization’s publications and conference agendas suggest an evangelical orientation, and in a study of student members (de Jong, 2018), 55% of the respondents self-identified as evangelical Protestant. Besides running webinars and publishing professional literature, NACSW puts out a peer-reviewed journal, Social Work & Christianity, and organizes an annual convention. Gender identity issues have been addressed via the latter two platforms. In 2017, the NACSW’s board of directors formulated a “Unity in Diversity Statement” that includes the following paragraph: So, at NACSW we pursue the unity of the body of Christ through worship and prayer, but we also pursue it through hard conversations about topics on which people of good faith disagree adamantly. We do not shy away from conversations about politics, sexual orientation, immigration, gender identity and expression, the Black Lives Matter movement, abortion, or decisions at the end of life. We are, after all, both Christians and social workers. We listen, we affirm, we recognize the dignity and worth in all people, we empathize and seek to truly understand even when we do not and cannot agree. We love one another. (National Association of Christians in Social Work, 2017)

As a Christian social work organization and congruent with its mission, NACSW tries to straddle the divide between nondiscrimination and religious liberty. David Sherwood, who was the editor of Social Work & Christianity for 35 years, wrote in an issue devoted to “Christianity and social work practice with LGBTQ clients” that NACSW walks “the difficult middle road—clearly committed to both Christian faith and competent social work practice, not presuming to have the final answers in either” (Sherwood, 2017, p. 9). As my research showed, the line between humility and ambivalence is a thin one, and “walking the middle road” with respect to LGBTQ issues can be a difficult task for Christian social workers. Since I was intrigued by the dynamics between the intersecting values of Christian faith and professional social work, I conducted several studies to learn more about this process. These studies were published in NACSW’s journal Social Work & Christianity. The first one concerned

50 

D. H. DE JONG

social work faculty in conservative Christian schools (i.e. schools belonging to the CCCU). This research showed that faculty members had mostly positive attitudes toward transgender persons and issues (de Jong, 2017a). All respondents believed that it was either important (56%) or extremely important (44%) for social work students to learn about transgender issues. Also, 36% of the faculty members felt that “transgender individuals should be accepted as a manifestation of diversity”, while another 28% agreed that they “should be accepted as a manifestation of diversity and celebrated for their courage to be true to themselves”. However, 5% indicated that “although transgender individuals should be accepted, a transgender identity is in opposition to biblical teaching”, and 3% stated the belief that “although transgender individuals should be accepted as people, acting on a transgender identity is a sin”. When asked if “social workers have a moral responsibility to help transgender clients explore going back to the gender identity assigned at birth”, 59% responded with “no”, 5% with “yes”, 34% with “depends”, and 2% with “not sure”. Another practice-related question, which asked if a non-accepting worker should refer a client out, resulted in 46% “yes” responses, while 2% of respondents said “no” and 51% “depends”. High percentages in the category “depends” were also recorded for questions about a social worker’s effectiveness when not understanding a gender transition (51%) or not  being fully accepting of it (46%). Moreover, 38% of social work faculty were “not sure” about granting tenure to a colleague coming out as transgender or gender variant (50% would support tenure). The relatively high percentages of “depends” and “not sure” responses seemed to suggest the possibility of ambivalence, which was also found in a second, qualitative study. The qualitative study of social work faculty at conservative Christian institutions was framed by the moral theories of Virtue Ethics and Ethics of Care (de Jong, 2017b). In brief, Virtue Ethics posits that moral behavior results from a virtuous character, a theory which has been viewed as consistent with the values of both social work and Christianity (e.g. Chamiec-Case, 2013; Schreiber, Groenhout, & Brandsen, 2014), and with the requirements of openness to the other in multicultural counseling (Fowers & Davidov, 2006). Ethics of Care, originating in feminism, is a theory that focuses on relationship and power dynamics (e.g. Held, 2006; Campbell, 2015). It also seemed relevant to my study of social work educators, given its applicability to work with vulnerable and marginalized populations, such as in the transgender community.

4  EXEMPTIONS TO TITLE IX: RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

51

In the study I did indeed find statements reflective of Virtue Ethics, like “what the Scripture says is to love one another, period. So that covers everything. So we have to respect people right where they are, which is a core value of the social work profession.” Also: “I’m being informed by the Word as it transforms my mind … and I’m able to therefore take on the character of Christ as it were, as the Word transforms me from the inside out” (see de Jong, 2017b, p. 81). Indicative of an Ethics of Care perspective is the following statement from one of the faculty members: “I felt like the kind of evidence that Jesus provided for his ministry really meant we need to care for and engage and work with the poor and marginalized in ways to create a more just and caring society” (see de Jong, 2017b, p. 82). In addition to the Virtue Ethics and Ethics of Care theories, I analyzed the interview responses according to Yarhouse’s (2015) “integrated” model for conceptualizing gender dysphoria, briefly described in Chap. 2. To reiterate, Yarhouse’s “integrated” model distinguishes an “integrity framework” (binary and essentialist), a “disability framework” (gender dysphoria as a consequence of the Fall), and a “diversity framework” (more or less affirming of gender variance). None of the participants in my study responded in ways that reflected the integrity framework outright, but pieces of the disability framework did show up in the interviews. For example, while the disability framework does not assign blame to a person with gender dysphoria, it leaves room to judge a gender transition as sinful, as demonstrated by the following statement: “I don’t see that sin [a gender transition] as any different as somebody who steals, or somebody who tells a lie, if you understand what I’m saying … sin is sin … and I don’t think God sees it differently either” (see de Jong, 2017b, p. 83). However, when asked about the admonition of “accepting the sinner, but not the sin”, another participant in the study seemed more reluctant to analyze gender identity from a perspective of sin: … now when it comes to things like transgender issues or homosexuality, that makes it more complicated and less useful to me … because if this is who they are and this is who God made them to be, then is expressing that wrong, is that a sin? I have hard time with that. (de Jong, 2017b, p. 84)

Even Yarhouse’s more radical diversity framework (expanding gender identity beyond an essentialist binary model) could be found in the interviews. As one of the research participants commented with respect to

52 

D. H. DE JONG

Biblical interpretations of gender: “… that gender complementary is not there … […] I mean … again, there is really good, solid evangelical scholarship debunking that right now, right and left …” (see de Jong, 2017b, p. 84). This particular study again demonstrated a range of views on gender identity issues, held by people with both a personal and a professional interest in social justice, but working in conservative Christian institutions. The study also reinforced the previous finding of ambivalence. Thus, one faculty member said: I don’t know if being transgender per se is a sin, because I don’t see transgender listed anywhere … and ultimately, if we are created in the image of God, then what does that mean … how do we deal with people who are, say, intersex … does that mean there are multiple notions of identity of who God is? … […] At the same time there are things in Scripture that indicate … like yeah, it seems like there was an intention in creation to have man and woman and … now, what does that all mean and how do we understand that within our cultural context? (de Jong, 2017b, p. 85)

Specific ambivalence was expressed when asked about Title IX exemptions. In the words of one participant: … in general I think religious institutions should have a right to have some protection that is rooted in their theological beliefs (…)…at the same time I think religious institutions should try to engage people who are different and try to have conversations with them. (de Jong, 2017b, p. 86)

The ambivalence that surfaced from some of the responses in the studies described above seems similar to the ambivalence one can detect in Yarhouse’s model. Insisting on an essentialist view of gender in terms of ideology and policy does not mix well with new insights about gender identity and gender variance; it also tends to create barriers where bridges are called for. As a follow-up on the two studies of social work educators, I conducted a survey of Christian social work students, recruited from the membership list of the North American Association of Christians in Social Work (de Jong, 2018). As with the research on faculty, the student sample turned out to be quite heterogeneous in terms of its beliefs. In fact, about one third of the sample seemed to have rather liberal views on gender identity. On the other hand, the aggregate responses from all the students showed

4  EXEMPTIONS TO TITLE IX: RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

53

them to be less accepting of gender variance than the social work faculty I studied. For example, 21% of the students thought it was unlikely or very unlikely that a transgender person would de-transition, but 69% of the faculty members had that opinion; and while 39% of the students indicated that a transgender identity is inconsistent with Scripture or that a gender transition is a sin, only 8% of the faculty held those views. Also, 73% of the students were concerned about curriculum content related to the marginalization of transgender people (versus 95% of the faculty members) and only 35% of the students would approach transgender issues from a moral perspective of accepting and celebrating gender diversity (versus 64% of the faculty responders). However, with respect to extending tenure to a transgender professor, the students were more liberal: 64% of the students would support tenure, versus 50% of the faculty. The progressive one third of the student sample showed up in questions about the possible subjective nature of gender identity (35% said “yes”, indicating agreement, plus 13% were “not sure”) and the belief in a gender binary (27% answered “no” and 15% responded with “not sure”). Also, 36% of the students were supportive of the idea of gender-neutral bathrooms on campus (plus 15% “not sure”). Statistical analysis demonstrated a significant association when the “liberal” responders were paired across these last three items, suggesting a distinct group of students within the sample. The finding that, on the whole, the students’ views were rather conservative was speculated to be due to the continued influence from their home environments, which for many of them were still only in the recent past. The studies described in this chapter relied on self-selected samples and were exploratory in nature. Nevertheless, they seem to provide some insight into the interaction between religious values and social justice values, since the social work context makes this dynamic rather explicit. The research participants had stakes in both the real world of transgender individuals (potential clients of social work services) and in the communities of Christian faith that shaped them and in which many still worshipped. These studies document a considerable degree of ambivalence and suggest the challenges that conservative Christian churches have yet to confront, as well as the opportunities for change.

54 

D. H. DE JONG

References Brougher, C. (2011, January 20). Religion and the workplace: Legal analysis of title VII of the civil rights act of 1964 as it applies to religion and religious organizations. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article= 1809&context=key_workplace Campbell, T. (2015). Voicing unease: Care ethics in the professionalization of social care. The New Bioethics, 21(1), 33–45. Campus Pride. (2019, April 16). Campus pride officially releases the 2019 shame list highlighting the “Absolute worst campuses for LGBTQ youth”. Retrieved from https://www.campuspride.org/campus-pride-officially-releases-the-2019shame-list-highlighting-the-absolute-worst-campuses-for-lgbtq-youth/ Catholic Social Workers’ National Association. (n.d.). Policy. Catholic social workers’ national association. Retrieved from https://www.cswna.org/Policy Chamiec-Case, R. (2013). The contribution of virtue ethics to a richer understanding of social work competencies. Social Work & Christianity, 40(3), 251–270. de Jong, D. (2017a). Christian social work education and transgender issues: A faculty survey. Social Work & Christianity, 44(1&2), 53–71. de Jong, D. (2017b). “Living in the tension in-between” – Faculty members talk about faith and transgender issues in Christian social work programs. Social Work & Christianity, 44(3), 75–93. de Jong, D. (2018). Christian social work students and gender variance: An exploratory study. Social Work & Christianity, 45(4), 83–97. Fowers, B. J., & Davidov, B. J. (2006). The virtue of multiculturalism: Personal transformation, character, and openness to the other. American Psychologist, 61(6), 581–594. Green, J. (2016, January 21). HRC report on anti-LGBT religious exemptions under Title IX ignores most obvious solution. Retrieved from http://americablog.com/2016/01/hrc-report-anti-lgbt-title-ix-exemptions-ignores-mostobvious-solution.html Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global. New  York: Oxford University Press. Human Rights Campaign. (2015). Hidden discrimination: Title IX religious exemptions putting LGBT students at risk. Washington, DC: Human Rights Campaign. Retrieved from https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/ Title_IX_Exemptions_Report.pdf Kingkade, T. (2018, Spetember 14). Betsy DeVos wants to make it easier for religious schools to avoid Title IX. BuzzFeed News. Retrieved from https://www. buzzfeednews.com/article/tylerkingkade/betsy-devos-religious-exemptiontitle-ix-discrimination Lee, J. (2016, May 9). New Title IX religious exemptions list. Retrieved from https://thepregnantscholar.org/new-title-ix-religious-exemptions-list/

4  EXEMPTIONS TO TITLE IX: RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

55

National Association of Christians in Social Work. (n.d.). Mission. National Association of Christians in Social Work. Retrieved from https://www.nacsw. org/about-nacsw/mission/ National Association of Christians in Social Work. (2017). Unity in diversity statement. National association of Christians in social work. Retrieved from https:// www.nacsw.org/about-nacsw/mission/unity-in-diversity-statement/ National Association of Social Workers. (2017). Code of ethics. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers. Retrieved from https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English New, J. (2016, April 27). Waiting for the NCAA. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/27/ncaa-hesitantcondemn-religious-institutions-have-requested-title-ix-waivers Schreiber, J. C., Groenhout, R. E., & Brandsen, C. (2014). Introducing a virtue perspective for social work and helping. Social Work & Christianity, 41(2/3), 113–135. Sherwood, D. (2017). Christianity and social work practice with LGBTQ clients. Dealing competently, ethically, and faithfully with hard issues: The difficult but necessary road. Social Work & Christianity, 44(1&2), 3–10. Siripurapu, A. (2016, August 10). Lara drops key part of bill on religious colleges. Sacramento Bee. Retrieved from https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article94875902.html U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.-a). Part 106, nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities receiving federal financial aid. Department of Education, Ed.gov. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/ policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-34cfr106.html#S12 U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.-b). Religious exemptions index 2009–2016. U.S. department of education, office for civil rights. Retrieved from https:// www2.ed.gov/about/of fices/list/ocr/docs/t9-rel-exempt/z-indexlinks-list-2009-2016.html U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.-c). Other correspondence. U.S. department of education, office for civil rights. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/ about/offices/list/ocr/correspondence/other.html U.S.  Departments of Justice & Education. (2016, May 13). “Dear Colleague” letter. U.S. department of education, office for civil rights. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201605-title-ix-transgender.pdf U.S. House of Representatives. (n.d.). 20 U.S.C. Code, paragraph 1681. Title IX Statute. U.S.  Code. Retrieved from https://uscode.house.gov/view. xhtml?req=20+USC+1681%3A+Sex&f=treesort&fq=true&num=10&hl=true &edition=prelim&granuleId=USC-prelim-title20-section1681 Yarhouse, M. A. (2015). Understanding gender dysphoria: Navigating transgender issues in a changing culture. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

CHAPTER 5

Trans Advocacy and Activism in Conservative Christian Communities

Abstract  This chapter explores the concept of “transformation”, based on Contact Theory, and in regard to reconciling opposing views on gender identity and religious liberty. It also asks what conditions would facilitate an effective dialogue about these issues. The chapter draws on the findings of a qualitative study exploring trans advocacy and activism directed at conservative Christian communities, illustrating the heterogeneity of these settings. Keywords  Transformation • Contact Theory • Advocacy • Activism • Dialogue • Empowerment On a political level, transgender issues have been most prominent with respect to the introduction of state-level bathroom bills that allow access to restrooms only in accordance with one’s sex assigned at birth (Kralik, 2017) and Title IX exemptions for Christian colleges resisting potential accommodations for transgender students, faculty, and staff (Human Rights Campaign, 2015). As we have seen in the previous chapter, these issues can create a moral minefield for evangelical Christians struggling to reconcile Biblical and social justice values. They can also increase activism in conservative communities of faith, which is the subject of this chapter. In the summer of 2018, I initiated a qualitative study of transgender activism in conservative Christian communities (colleges, church © The Author(s) 2020 D. H. de Jong, Conservative Christianity, Gender Identity, and Religious Liberty, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42393-3_5

57

58 

D. H. DE JONG

congregations, online communities). As in the previous research described in Chap. 4, I decided to use the moral theories of Virtue Ethics and Ethics of Care to help frame the new study. To restate once again: Virtue Ethics maintains that moral acts follow from moral character, while Ethics of Care adds a concern with relationships, vulnerability, and power differentials, thereby providing more specific directions for moral behavior. These theories seem compatible, if not complementary (Thomas, 2011). They also appear to be particularly appropriate to the study of values, including religious values, and to the study of change inspired by values. In that sense, they are different from moral theories which describe change in terms of outcome, like utilitarianism’s calculated approach of achieving overall happiness (Mill, 1871), or change brought about by adherence to rules of justice (“justice as a virtue of institutions”; Rawls, 1957, p. 653). Since change is the goal of activism, I looked for additional theoretical concepts to help analyze the data. I reasoned that a change in beliefs about gender identity would have to be a transformative process—profound, personal, institutional. This pivotal notion of transformative change became another anchor for the new study about transgender advocacy and activism described here. While “transformation” has become somewhat of a buzzword spanning fields as diverse as business management and peace studies, a common understanding of transformative change suggests foundational or structural change, as well as personal change that comes from deep within. Further exploration of the literature confirmed that supposition but expanded on it as well. What follows is a brief and selective review of diverse sources, which illustrates how the concept of transformation has been incorporated in a multitude of academic, political, and spiritual perspectives.

Transformation The potential for individual agency within and transformation of rather rigid social structures is, not surprisingly, another complex theoretical issue (see, e.g., Bourdieu, 1989; McCloud, 2012; Todd, 2005). Social transformation has been linked to Ethics of Care and the economic and socio-political position of women (Esquivel, 2014), and—as preached by church leaders—to the notion of virtue by an emphasis on “moral credibility” (Braxton, 2012, p.  30). References to “transformation” in the scholarly literature also often connect it to the concept of justice. In that context, transformative justice is described as quite different from

5  TRANS ADVOCACY AND ACTIVISM IN CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN… 

59

transitional or restorative justice, both of which have been criticized by feminist scholars as ignoring the structural causes of injustice (Lambourne & Rodriguez Carreon, 2016; Miguel & Gargano, 2017). Thus, while transitional justice is viewed as more of a legal, “top-down” process, transformative justice is conceptualized as a “bottom-up”, community-based, political process (Gready & Robins, 2014, p. 2). With respect to the education and criminal justice systems (Miguel & Gargano, 2017), as well as the child welfare system (generationFIVE, 2017), the case has been made to replace a punitive model of restorative justice with the more compassionate concept of transformative justice. Making the connection between change on both the individual and social levels while describing “transformative organizing”, Pyles (2013) states: “Based on an analysis of the intersectionality of oppression, this is an organizing practice that works toward the holistic liberation of both individuals and institutions” (p. 91). In the peace studies literature, social transformation has been discussed as the complex practice of activists “moving from polarization to complexity” (Ben David & Rubel-Lifschitz, 2018, p.  17), requiring a “collaborative approach” (Bretherton, 2018, p. 93) engaged not just in protesting the existing structures, but in developing new ones. John Lederach, another peace studies scholar, is well known for his writings about conflict transformation as a strategy that is relational and dynamic, is aimed at underlying structures, and includes consideration of cultural identity. Lederach (2003) believes that “Conflict is an opportunity, a gift” (p. 18) and that—at times—“conflict escalation” can be useful “to pursue constructive change” (p. 33). The idea that true transformation is often accompanied by an increase in anxiety has also been expressed with reference to “relational justice”: Relational justice is born out of the act of choosing to bind ourselves to the other. It involves reaching across boundaries of race, gender, and economics in order to live in community with those who are not like us and to learn from them. (Sandage, Jensen, & Jass, 2008, p. 200)

In addition to being anxiety-producing, transformation has been viewed as potentially disruptive of cultural patterns. For example, this notion has been articulated in the context of subverting identity politics. Thus, for the past two decades, identity politics has increasingly been criticized for its reinforcement of the status quo (for example Hekman, 2000; Heyes, 2016). As an alternative, Keating (Keating, 2013) proposed a

60 

D. H. DE JONG

“transformational identity politics” (p. 91) to disrupt binary models that solidify the positions of those in power versus those on the margin. This connotation of transformation as disruptive of established power structures illustrates another dimension of the concept: Transformation upsets the status quo. It seems that the term “transformation” is ubiquitous. There appears to be a consensus that “transformation” is about personal change with societal implications, and—vice versa—social change with personal ramifications. It also denotes a holistic perspective (integrating thoughts, feelings, behavior, spirituality), change on a deep level, and a positive, process-­ oriented approach. While open to various interpretations and potential inconsistencies, it is an all-encompassing concept that seemed helpful in framing a study of activism and advocacy around transgender issues within the polarized context of conservative faith communities. Besides the theories of Virtue Ethics and Ethics of Care, and the construct of “transformation”, another theoretical anchor for this study of activism revealed itself during data collection and analysis. This one was related to a major strategy mentioned by advocates of transgender and genderqueer affirmation, namely the use of dialogue. Intergroup dialogue as an intervention is built on Allport’s Contact Theory (Allport, 1954), which states that stereotypes and biases may be reduced through interaction between majority and minority groups. Parenthetically, the theoretical link between transformation and dialogue has been noted elsewhere in the literature (e.g. Lederach, 2003, p. 21).

Contact Theory In a recent opinion piece in the New York Times about the Title IX debates on Christian college campuses, which pit advocates for religious liberty against those seeking to protect LGBT rights, historian Molly Worthen writes: “Title IX should be the least of conservatives’ worries—because some of their own students are prepared to change evangelical culture even when court cases fail” (Worthen, 2018, para. 23). A similar finding about the relative influence of “internal advocates” versus imposed policy changes resulted from a previous study of social work faculty and supports for transgender students (de Jong, 2015, p. 212). These observations are noteworthy given their underlying explanation: The views on gender identity in conservative Christian schools are changing because of increased

5  TRANS ADVOCACY AND ACTIVISM IN CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN… 

61

exposure to and interaction with those who are different. This, in a general sense, is the idea behind Contact Theory. The contact hypothesis has been tested in numerous studies. A meta-­ analysis of contact studies examining the mediating roles of increased knowledge, reduced anxiety, and greater empathy found that the affective components (decreased anxiety and increased empathy) played the largest role in lessening prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). The important role of anxiety is noteworthy, given the previous observations about heightened anxiety as an initial requirement for meaningful transformation. Another meta-analysis (Lemmer & Wagner, 2015) found a positive effect of contact interventions on attitudes toward ethnic minorities. In terms of attitudes toward transgender people and transgender-inclusive theories, two national surveys (Tadlock et al., 2017) found that having a transgender family member, friend, or acquaintance resulted in more positive attitudes toward transgender people and transgender-affirming policies. Also, contact as an intervention by way of a transgender speaker panel led to a greater decrease in transphobia among a sample of college students than did delivery of content in lecture format (Walch et al., 2012). Finally, based on a comprehensive literature review, Al Ramiah and Hewstone (2013) suggest that intentional contact experiences, face to face as well as indirect, can be effective in improving relations between groups. However, they warn against the potential risk of ignoring “structural group disparities and discouraging group members from engaging in collective action aimed at social change” (p. 538). In the context of the study on transgender activism discussed here, this important caveat will be discussed further in the next chapter. While the theories of Virtue Ethics and Ethics of Care continued to be relevant to my new research on activism, the concepts of transformation and intergroup contact were added to the study’s theoretical framework, since they seemed salient with respect to the literature. Planned intergroup contact typically takes the form of dialogue. Thus, given the expanded framework, the research question was worded as follows: “How does dialogue help to transform beliefs and practices regarding transgender issues and faith in conservative Christian communities?” The faith communities that were of interest to this study included Christian institutions of higher education, as well as conservative Christian congregations. In qualitative research jargon, these communities were conceptualized as “critical cases” (Patton, 2002, p.  236), providing clear examples of the potential conflict between religious values and transgender activism. Thus,

62 

D. H. DE JONG

what follows is a report of a “nested case study” (Patton, 2002, p. 298), with data obtained through personal interviews and a content analysis of relevant websites. The interview participants were recruited from a pool of individuals identified as transgender advocates because of their exposure in the media or their membership in an online transgender/ally support group. Four persons volunteered to participate in an interview. In this report of the study they have been given fictional names to protect confidentiality. One of the participants (John) is a middle-aged cisgender man, employed in academia. Two others, a middle-aged cisgender woman (Debra) and a middle-aged cisgender man (Mark), work for two different Christian social justice organizations with a focus on LGBTQ issues. The fourth participant (Hanson) is a young adult who identifies as trans-­ masculine and works for yet another Christian social justice organization focusing on LGBTQ issues. While the number of interviewees was small, their diverse backgrounds resulted in a significant amount of rich data. Additional information was gathered by a textual analysis of different websites of groups or individuals committed to transgender advocacy in conservative Christian settings (mostly as part of broader advocacy on behalf of the LGBTQ community as a whole). It should be noted that websites and Facebook groups linked to specific Christian colleges are typically organized by alumni and have no formal affiliation with the school. With some exceptions, postings on these platforms appear to be infrequent and out-of-date. Even so, it seems likely that college-specific online resources continue to provide useful information for current students. However, the students themselves may not be that vocal in these digital environments now that in-person communication between LGBTQ students on their actual campus has become more common (Gjelten, 2018; Worthen, 2018). By contrast, the websites of organizations that aim for a broader geographic audience (and also appear to have a paid staff) seem to be very interactive and well-used for purposes of communication and community building. Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that the observations made here apply to data collected in the summer of 2018 and that online content can change. Below is a discussion of the major themes found in the interviews conducted for this study, followed by a brief content analysis of the websites.

5  TRANS ADVOCACY AND ACTIVISM IN CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN… 

63

Concerns About Attitudes and Practices Regarding Transgender Issues The interview  participants clearly positioned themselves as practicing Christians, with a deep commitment to their faith. Simultaneously, they expressed a number of different concerns with respect to the attitudes and practices of conservative Christian denominations and church members. These concerns reflected elements of the previously discussed theories of Virtue Ethics (in terms of the moral center provided by their religious beliefs, including an openness to the Other) and Ethics of Care (an awareness of the Other’s marginalization and the need for action to remedy that situation), as in the following statement from Mark: I think that church teaching about social justice and about pastoral practice, as well as particularly now the example of Pope Francis, shows us that we have to be a lot more welcoming of transgender people than we have been in the past as a church.

From a more personal perspective, Hanson talked about his attempts to engage in dialogue with the college community of which he was a part, and the devastation he experienced because of the lack of response: But a final way in which people responded to me at that time was just silence … acting like nothing ever happened … but then beyond that, like I never existed … and just erased me from their life … and did not tell me why, and I can’t even be sure when it happened, but it did … and there were plenty of messages I sent that went not responded to, plenty of calls that I made that went unreturned … and it was just a very clear message that the majority of people who I would have considered like family to me no longer wanted to be in my life … yeah, that’s probably the most devastating thing I have ever experienced.

John and Debra both mentioned their concern with the stereotypes around transgender persons, and how these are reflected in the support from conservative Christians for the various “bathroom bill” proposals that were introduced in a number of state legislatures. John stated it this way: I think that the bathroom issue really does kind of serve as a kind of crystallization of what I see as the way transgender issues are dealt with in

64 

D. H. DE JONG

c­ onservative Christianity … that there is a misunderstanding, an assumption that a transgender person is simply being deceitful and, essentially, is trying to have access to vulnerable kids, vulnerable people, for sexually perverse reasons. The way I see it handled within conservative Christianity is essentially just fear of predatory … this is not a term I would use, but the term I think would be used in that context … a fear of predatory crossdressing, just to be able to have access to vulnerable people.

All interviewees critiqued the way in which Bible passages are used by conservative Christians to condemn gender transitions and gender nonconforming behavior. John weighed this approach against the merits of scientific knowledge: I do value empirical research and believe that the Bible really doesn’t speak directly to a lot of topics that we are debating and discussing today … and so I think that if empirical research clearly does address a topic and the Bible doesn’t clearly address that topic, then to me it is not really an issue of which basis of knowledge you use, but to choose the one that is relevant.

Debra and Mark noted the cultural bias that seems inherent in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Debra stated her reservations in general terms: I don’t read the bible literally, nor do I think of it as an inerrant text … I think of it as a collection of books, and that is definitely different from what I believed ten years ago. And I also see much more clearly that every single person who reads the bible brings their own lens to it … […] and now it’s so clear to me that “Well, which lens are you going to look at the bible through, to have this interpretation?” You can’t say “culture out there”, and not look at your own culture… whether it’s Southern Baptist, or mainline Methodist … everybody has a skewed vision of what we are looking at. We do… everybody is culturally influenced, one way or another.

Mark specifically suggested the historical limitation regarding people’s conceptualization of the gender binary: … and I think the scriptural text has for very long been interpreted in terms of the gender binary … that kind of interpretation reinforces the binary … so I don’t think it has to do with transgender people particularly … but because of what they learn about gender, they’ll say “Well, these people are aberrant, or deviant”, because they don’t fit into that gender norm. […] I would remind them that God has no gender and that the historical

5  TRANS ADVOCACY AND ACTIVISM IN CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN… 

65

c­ ircumstances under which Scripture was written … they were written in cultures that only understood gender in terms of the binary … and that Scripture, while divinely inspired, also often reflects human understandings about the world around us.

Among the interviewees, the alternative to a culturally biased reading of the Bible seemed to focus on an approach that emphasizes the generic message of God’s love for all people. As John said: I believe that our primary responsibility is to act in love toward each other and to God … and I think the way to best live a life that glorifies God is to be His ambassadors of His love and His grace and His desire for reconciliation … and so I believe that as a person of faith who wants to live a life that glorifies God, I am called to show the same type of grace and love and spirit of reconciliation in whichever ways I can.

In addition, Hanson referred to recent scholarly writings that take issue with the way Scripture has traditionally been interpreted: There is a New Testament scholar, Dale Martin, who has done a lot of really deep and important work around the interpretation of a few particular passages that have been used against LGBTQ people … and it is work that has been very challenging for more conservatives to refute, because of how rigorous it is and because of the methods he has used to come to different conclusions about what these passages say…

The statement “accept the sinner, but not the sin”, often heard in discussions of LGBTQ issues in conservative Christian circles, was also criticized by the study’s participants. For example, Mark noted the implications of that statement regarding someone’s sense of identity: … the issues of sexuality and gender are so intertwined with people’s identity … so that the “person versus sin”, or the “sinner versus sin” distinction doesn’t work well … because if you are saying that someone’s gender or sexuality is sinful, you are not loving the sinner then … if you are hating the sin, you’re hating the sinner, because those traits of gender and sexuality are so intertwined with identity.

Hanson, again from a very personal perspective, suggested that, to him, the comment of “accepting the sinner, but not the sin” is both offensive and complex:

66 

D. H. DE JONG

You know, I believed that … that was a perspective that I had for years of my life, about myself … and so, for me, I read from a lot of progressive theologians that no longer ascribe to the ideas about human depravity and human sinfulness in a way as robust and categorical as conservative Christians think about that topic … but I do think that having a large and comprehensive view of what sinfulness is, both in ourselves and in the world, really does help people begin to parse through what they believe and why they believe it.

Motivating Force Behind Advocacy and Activism For all four of the study’s participants, their faith seemed to be a strong force behind their advocacy and activism on behalf of transgender people and transgender issues. Based on that, some of the descriptions of their actions again mirror elements of both Virtue Ethics and Ethics of Care. For example, Debra explained her religious inspiration as follows: I think my faith … oh my goodness, it’s sort of like the glasses, the lens that I look at the world through … so I would say it colors and influences everything that I do. And it also serves as a corrective … so when I am … oh, it’s so hard to articulate these things … this is a really good question … so for example, when I get upset with news, what’s happening in the political realm, for example … my gut, I might be very angry and say “oh, those people are stupid”, and then very quickly my faith lens reminds me “those people that you’re calling stupid are just as loved by God as you are … how can you reframe this … how can you move toward this in prayer, as opposed to moving away from it or moving toward it in just anger.”

Describing what she has learned from her work with sexual and gender minorities, Debra stated: I now have a much deeper understanding of what these people are going through. So I would say, whereas I framed it as a sin before, I now frame it theologically as an incredibly complex issue that people who are beloved of God need to deal with. And people who love them … which should be everybody in the church … should take a very nonjudgmental stance at and walk with them… not necessarily championing any particular outcome… but listening carefully along the way … “What is this person going through? … what does this person need?” … and it’s going to look different in every person’s case.

5  TRANS ADVOCACY AND ACTIVISM IN CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN… 

67

When asked about his work and about what motivates him on a daily basis, Mark responded confidently: I have thought and prayed a lot about my positions, and I have consulted with other people about my positions, and I am confident that God is happy with what I am doing … or as confident as anyone can be about that [laughs]. […] You know, a lot of times I’ll meet people and they’ll say “Oh, your work must be so hard, or must be so difficult” … and they ask that because they think that most of my day is spent dealing with critics, and actually most of my day is spent being in touch with people who are doing … supportive people who are doing wonderful things in regard to LGBT outreach. So I get to meet a lot of wonderful people [laughs again] … and the critics are few and far between.

Hanson talked about the lengthy process of personal transformation that took place through reflection by himself and in communion with other Christians identifying as LGBTQ: … so I no longer could look at what the Bible says about gender and sexuality as black and white, I could no longer look at it as something clear, and something univocal, and something … that was static … something that had always … that Christians had always believed and always taught in the ways that it was taught to me … and so, through that deconstruction process, I simultaneously was working really hard to determine what could be retained … what about how I had understood my faith could actually […] lead to life and flourishing … what ways had I participated in a system that harmed other people, that harmed myself … and how can I kind of recover from that. So for me that’s where that work began … […] it became very clear that being lesbian, bisexual, gay, trans, intersex … any of these things, and being honest about it, and being able to share some of that experience was the most Christian thing we could be doing, because that authenticity and the integrity in that was the means by which God was going to be working in us and through us.

Role as Advocate/Activist One significant similarity in the types of activism (or advocacy, as one participant preferred to label the work) described in the interviews for this study concerned the strategy of “dialogue”. However, there were differences in the level of formality with respect to this strategy. For example, John needed to tread quite lightly in his college setting, after having encountered some institutional resistance against an earlier proposal for a Gay Straight Alliance on campus:

68 

D. H. DE JONG

I think, to be honest, I see my role more in kind of mentoring students, than in advocating for change … although, I have to admit, when it comes to methods of change, the approach that I really like is … I really admire Harvey Milk and I admire the approach he took. […] Harvey Milk’s approach was getting into a structure or an organization to bring about change from the inside out. […] It resonates with my personality more to get into the structure and change it from the inside. I think more than seeing myself as an advocate, I see myself as kind of a mentor.

More overt are the formal dialogue programs organized and led by Debra and Mark. These programs are educational, aimed at consciousness-­ raising. They clearly are rooted in Contact Theory, according to which a dominant group learns from a marginalized group through—in this case— planned interaction. In the statement below, Debra describes an offshoot of her original dialogue program that aims to be an incubator for further conversations in faith communities: I have had the opportunity to elevate the voices of sexual and gender minorities … so one of the things I do is “dialogue fishbowls”, where I take six alums, four to six alums, and we go to a university, or seminary, or church, and we sort of do a demonstration of what the dialogues look like. Now that’s completely different from when we do them on our own … then it’s completely behind closed doors, it’s completely confidential. […] But this is a public demonstration, so that people can see the kinds of questions that they ask each other … and they can also learn a little bit about people’s stories … so I feel like … the image I use is a midwife … I help midwife these conversations, or these relationships.

The work of Hanson and his organization seems to fall more toward the “radical” or “activist” end of the spectrum, in that he articulates some of the limits of the dialogue approach and describes additional leadership development activities: … dialogue is really important … but I don’t believe dialogue in and of itself is what helps transform how people think about these topics. I think that a big part of what we try to do is teach and train leaders. […] I think that people have to be exposed to their own potential, have to be exposed to their own empowerment … they have to be given permission, unfortunately … I wish it wasn’t this way … permission to ask themselves questions, and to research other perspectives … and to acknowledge power dynamics … and then confront them, and really sort of explore what’s going on in

5  TRANS ADVOCACY AND ACTIVISM IN CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN… 

69

this community that I am a part of, and why is it happening that way … and so I think the conversations that we try to equip people to have are not enough by themselves … there has to be more development for people to really feel whole and to feel empowered and to feel okay … not just to have these conversations, but okay in life … so that is a huge piece of it as well … really supporting our leaders and our constituents in a way where it’s sustainable to them … the work that we are doing and trying to get people to join us.

Yet, even given these more far-reaching aspirations in terms of community building and empowerment, Hanson acknowledges that dialogue with those who are not yet on board with these changes remains important: … to me, the trajectory of trying to be in dialogue with these entrenched leaders who represent sort of the older order, is still valuable … even if it’s not our main focus, I think it matters … because it reduces harm … and to me that is a really important interim piece of this puzzle … even if very conservative thinkers and leaders don’t change their mind about this topic in full, in their lifetime, I think if they are learning more and they are building relationships with LGBTQ people … then the rhetoric that they are using is going to become more compassionate, it’s going to become less dogmatic, and it’s going to become more considerate of our dignity in a way that I believe will reduce all of the really devastating outcomes of non-affirming theology … so even if they don’t change their mind in this lifetime, I do think that, if they are able to grow and evolve in their understanding to a place where they are at least more thoughtful and careful with their words, I do think that family rejection and abandonment will decrease, I do think that LGBTQ youth homelessness—because of that—will decrease, I do think that rates of violence against LGBTQ people will decrease, I do think that depression, anxiety, suicide ideation, attempt, and completion will also decrease … and so to me, just because of those things, it is worth it to engage those entrenched leaders in some form of dialogue.

The Potential for Transformation During the interviews, it became clear that the study’s participants had different interpretations of the concept of “transformation”. These differences were typically related to the goals and strategies of the advocates/ activists. Thus Debra, whose program emphasizes dialogue, described transformation in relatively modest terms:

70 

D. H. DE JONG

Well, I think that that [transformation] is what we are trying to do with our work, because you can legislate certain things, you can legislate laws, but you can’t legislate attitudes … and if you don’t provide opportunities for people to have a heart-level transformation … even if it is not agreeing … but it’s transforming … “Oh, you are a human being who loves God as much as I do” … I mean, that’s transformation … from “You are a problem that needs to be solved” … to “You are a human being with a story and God’s hand is on your life” kind-of thing … “I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusions you came to, but I will respect and honor you, because you are my sibling in Christ.” That’s very, very different from “Okay, you are a problem to be fixed”.

As a modest goal, Debra seems to envision a “big tent” church (see de Jong, 2017, p. 89) that is at least open to talking about LGBTQ issues, as reflected in the following statement: I see a number of churches sort of saying “Wow, this is really important, I’ve got to get my head out of the sand, people are being hurt” … and they are moving toward more and more conversations of third-way churches, where we agree to disagree, basically … […] so I think that a certain number of churches in the middle are going to start considering LGBTQ issues as “This is something we may not come to the same conclusion about, but we are not going to break covenant with each other over it”.

However, even while endorsing a middle-of-the-road approach, Debra acknowledges the risk of continued resistance from conservative Christians, such as reflected in the Nashville Statement (a document released in 2017 by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood that opposed homosexuality and gender transitions; see Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, n.d.). In Debra’s words: So there is that digging in of heels … and it [the Nashville Statement] actually ended up destroying relationships, because they went out of their way to avoid asking for input from people whom they should be celebrating, you know, because they share their theology. So anyway, I don’t know if I’m being clear enough, but I feel that that kind of statement making is extremely damaging … and it’s the opposite of dialogue … and it comes out of fear … “The world is being dragged down this way, so we’ve got to throw our hooks in and drag it back the other way” … that’s not love, and that’s not even productive.

5  TRANS ADVOCACY AND ACTIVISM IN CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN… 

71

John, who had described his role as being a mentor to gender-­ nonconforming students, expressed the belief that true transformation may need to happen intrinsically: But I think we will need to have, before any change happens … I think it will probably need to be sparked by a couple of students who are willing to be open about their gender identity … and that’s going to be really tough.

Mark forecasted a similar process, but suggested that structured dialogue could be the preparation for that journey: … it will happen naturally … young people are growing in a world that is much more accepting of LGBT people than past generations have … there is just going to be a natural progression toward greater acceptance. […]… and I think that dialogue is the first step towards any change … and so we are at least, finally, taking the first step. I have faith that moving forward people will see it.

Not surprisingly, Hanson’s vision is the most far-reaching and includes a change in the Church’s power structure: I think it [the future] would look like the full inclusion of LGBTQ people in church life, meaning everything from membership all the way up to being ordained as leaders in these contexts, as pastors, as priests, as teachers … and more than just having the policies, they would be lived out … and so it wouldn’t just be a statement on a piece of paper, but there would be increasing visibility of LGBTQ religious leaders … because we would no longer be the exception, we would no longer be the anomaly, we would be just as visible as non-LGBTQ religious leaders … and I think beyond that … is making sure that folks within the LGBTQ community who experience additional layers of marginalization are being centered… and so we are talking about race, and we’re talking about gender … that would mean that it’s trans-feminine … or trans women of color who are moving toward the ­center of these communities in a way where they are leading […], and they are able to speak from their experiences and perspectives in a way that is considered valuable, is considered respected, is considered celebrated…

Noteworthy in Hanson’s response is his comment regarding intersectionality and the need to pay attention to gender minorities of color.

72 

D. H. DE JONG

Content Analysis of Websites For the second part of this study, a select number of websites, showing at least some recent activity, were examined and analyzed for content. All of the websites included in this review show elements of online community building. They provide education, resources, and avenues for communication among members of the Christian LGBTQ community. A number of them include information about political campaigns (like efforts to end conversion therapy), while others have links to relevant webinars or podcasts. Some address specific theological issues and discuss Biblical interpretations of sexuality and gender that are LGBTQ-affirming and are intended to counteract the “clobber passages” cited by conservative Christians in their condemnation of homosexuality and gender nonconformity. The main finding related to an analysis of the websites reflects the prior discussion of the interviews conducted for this study. Thus, as suggested by one of the interviewees quoted above, there seem to be two approaches to transgender activism in conservative Christian communities, advocacy and activism per se, and these different approaches are evident online as well. As in the interviews, the distinction is made by the mention of such issues as “power” and “intersectionality”. Of course, this observation does not imply that, in the absence of such terminology, organizations or their websites are of lesser value to LGBTQ Christians. For example, those who are inclined to view the Bible as central to their faith would find much support in websites and blogs that specifically address alternative conceptualizations of sexuality and gender within a Scriptural context. Interestingly, even some of the websites that have content focused on empowerment and intersectionality still place a strong emphasis on Biblical affirmation of sexual and gender diversity. However, the wording can also sound more radical and suggest nonviolent, direct action as an appropriate strategy to achieve change.

Discussion and Conclusion The research question posed at the start of this study was only partially answered. Thus, it seems that dialogue, as a structured intervention, is a major strategy employed by transgender activists and advocates of transgender people in conservative Christian settings. It also appears that they perceive this strategy as at least somewhat successful. However, the exact outcome of dialoguing as an intervention is not yet clear. The changes

5  TRANS ADVOCACY AND ACTIVISM IN CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN… 

73

may be incremental and the strategy may have a possible downside in terms of assimilating some from within the transgender community without truly empowering them. Also, the possibilities for dialogue may be limited, as acknowledged in the following statement by Fr. James Martin, a Jesuit priest who wrote a book about the relationship between the Catholic Church and the LGBT community: Finally, an important point came up while speaking to an LGBT outreach group at the Church of St. Paul the Apostle in New York. While I still feel that respectful dialogue with church leaders is the most effective way of building bridges, they pointed out that most LGBT Catholics have no real access to bishops, archbishops and cardinals. As a priest, I do have avenues open to me—more than many lay people do. In other words, that “lane” of the bridge is closed to many LGBT Catholics. (Shine, 2018, para. 9)

What emerged from this exploratory inquiry into transgender activism in conservative Christian communities is the impression of a growing movement across a spectrum of ideologies and strategies. However, questions remain: How long can the “big tent” of conservative Christianity continue to accommodate the differences in moral, spiritual, and intellectual views? If transformation does happen, will it be a long-term preposition requiring a generational changing of the guards (and, if so, at what cost in terms of decreased church attendance and membership), or will dialogue lead to meaningful change within a shorter time frame, affirming gender diversity and keeping young people engaged with their church? The ambivalence among Christians who have conservative religious views but are concerned about social justice, such as described in Chap. 4, would seem to provide an opening for further dialogue about gender identity and faith. The last chapter of this book will examine a moral framework that could inform this dialogue and could—potentially—result in transformative change.

References Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Al Ramiah, A., & Hewstone, M. (2013). Intergroup contact as a tool for reducing, resolving, and preventing intergroup conflict: Evidence, limitations, and potential. American Psychologist, 68(7), 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032603

74 

D. H. DE JONG

Ben David, Y., & Rubel-Lifschitz, T. (2018). Practice the change you want to see in the world: Transformative practices of social movements in Israel. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 24(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/ pac0000268 Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14–25. Braxton, B.  R. (2012). Leave no change behind. Sojourners Magazine, 41(8), 28–31. Bretherton, D. (2018). How can social movements transform societies? Developing a guide for practice. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology., 24(1), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000306 Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. (n.d.). Nashville statement. Retrieved from https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement/ de Jong, D. (2015) Transgender Issues and BSW Programs: Exploring Faculty Perceptions, Practices, and Attitudes. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 20, 199–218. de Jong, D. (2017). “Living in the tension in-between”: Faculty members talk about faith and transgender issues in Christian social work programs. Social Work & Christianity, 44(3), 75–93. Esquivel, V. (2014). What is an affirmative approach to care, and why do we need it? Gender and Development, 22(3), 423–439. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13552074.2014.963303 generationFIVE. (2017). Ending child sexual abuse: A transformative justice handbook. Retrieved from http://www.generationfive.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2017/06/Transformative-Justice-Handbook.pdf Gready, P., & Robins, S. (2014). From transitional to transformative justice: A new agenda for practice. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 8(3), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijtj/iju013 Gjelten, T. (2018, March 27). Christian colleges are tangled in their own LGBT policies. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr. org/2018/03/27/591140811/christian-colleges-are-tangled-in-theirown-lgbt-policies Hekman, S. (2000). Beyond identity: Feminism, identity and identity politics. Feminist Theory, 1(3), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/14647000022229245 Heyes, C. (2016). Identity politics. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ identity-politics/ Human Rights Campaign. (2015). Hidden discrimination: Title IX religious exemptions putting LGBT students at risk. Retrieved from https://assets2.hrc. org/files/assets/resources/Title_IX_Exemptions_Report.pdf Keating, A. (2013). Transformation now! Toward a post-oppositional politics of change. Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois Press. Retrieved from https://www. jstor.org/stable/10.5406/j.ctt3fh5zv

5  TRANS ADVOCACY AND ACTIVISM IN CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN… 

75

Kralik, J. (2017, July 28). “Bathroom bill” legislative tracking. National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/ education/-bathroom-bill-legislative-tracking635951130.aspx Lambourne, W., & Rodriguez Carreon, V. (2016). Engendering transitional justice: A transformative approach to building peace and attaining human rights for women. Human Rights Review, 17(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12142-015-0376-0 Lederach, J. P. (2003). The little book of conflict transformation. Intercourse, PA: Good Books. Lemmer, G., & Wagner, U. (2015). Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(2), 152–168. https://doi. org/10.1002/ejsp.2079 McCloud, S. (2012). The possibilities of change in a world of constraint: Individual and social transformation in the work of Pierre Bourdieu. Bulletin for the Study of Religion, 41(1), 2–8. Miguel, C., & Gargano, J. (2017). Moving beyond retribution: Alternatives to punishment in a society dominated by the school-to-prison pipeline. Humanities, 6(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3390/h6020015 Mill, J. S. (1871). Utilitarianism. Retrieved from http://fair-use.org/john-stuart-mill/utilitarianism/index Patton, M.  Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pettigrew, T.  F., & Tropp, L.  R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504 Pyles, L. (2013). Progressive community organizing: Reflective practice in a globalizing world (Second Edition). New York: Routledge. Rawls, J. (1957). I. Justice as fairness. The Journal of Philosophy, 54(22), 653–662. https://doi.org/10.2307/2021929 Sandage, S. J., Jensen, M. L., & Jass, D. (2008). Relational spirituality and transformation: Risking intimacy and alterity. Journal of Spiritual Formation and Soul Care, 1(2), 182–206. Shine, R. (2018, February 21). Interview: Fr. James Martin on the second edition of “Building a Bridge”. Retrieved from https://www.newwaysministry. org/2018/02/21/martin/ Tadlock, B. L., Flores, A. R., Haider-Markel, D. P., Lewis, D. C., Miller, P. R., & Taylor, J.  K. (2017). Testing contact theory and attitudes on transgender rights. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81(4), 956–972. https://doi.org/10.1093/ poq/nfx021 Thomas, A. (2011). Virtue ethics and ethics of care: Complementary or in conflict? Eidos, 14, 132–151. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/243260/ Virtue_Ethics_and_an_Ethics_of_Care

76 

D. H. DE JONG

Todd, J. (2005). Social transformation, collective categories, and identity change. Theory and Society, 34(4), 429–463. Walch, S.  E., Sinkkanen, K.  A., Swain, E.  M., Francisco, J., Breaux, C.  A., & Sjoberg, M.  D. (2012). Using intergroup contact theory to reduce stigma against transgender individuals: Impact of a transgender speaker panel presentation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(10), 2583–2605. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00955.x Worthen, M. (2018, June 2). Sex and gender on the Christian campus. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/opinion/ sunday/sex-gender-christian-campuses.html

CHAPTER 6

A Proposal: Morality over Legality

Abstract  Given the legal conundrum involving the conflict between religious freedom and nondiscrimination, the last chapter of this book proposes a return to the discussion of morality. In it I outline a pluralistic moral perspective that can accommodate broad-based religious values as well as scientific reasoning in the dialogue about gender diversity in conservative Christian settings. Keywords  Pluralistic morality • Role of science • Dialogue • Identity politics It appears that the conflict between the notion of religious liberty on the one hand and protection of transgender rights on the other is at a stalemate in terms of legislation or judicial action. As one observer concluded with respect to the report by the US Commission on Civil Rights regarding religious liberty, discussed in Chap. 3: “The system will remain confused, because the law is but clunky machinery for reconciling opposing world views” (Green, 2016). In this final chapter I want to explore an alternative approach to the problem. I want to discuss how a change in moral reasoning might be required to precede any legal resolution. Of course, one could argue that, in the current political climate of polarization, resolving a moral dilemma will be just as difficult as tackling a legal quandary. However, there are differences between legality and morality. © The Author(s) 2020 D. H. de Jong, Conservative Christianity, Gender Identity, and Religious Liberty, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42393-3_6

77

78 

D. H. DE JONG

Legality can be viewed as a top-down approach to enforce compliant behavior in order to create a minimal level of social cohesion. By contrast, morality is based on individual reflection and judgment interacting with socio-cultural values. Legality is imposed, morality is chosen. Moral reasoning leads to dialogue and activism—and to personal and social transformation (which may, eventually, lead to changes in the law that are based on a broad consensus and less likely to be viewed as coercive). In Chap. 2 I described previous attempts at reconciling conservative biblical notions with the phenomenon of gender variance: Yarhouse’s (2015) integrated framework, the embrace of ambivalence, the acceptance of divergent gender identities without the acceptance of resulting actions (“accepting the sinner, but not the sin”). These attempts, however, do not seem satisfactory. In Chap. 4 I briefly discussed how two normative moral theories, Virtue Ethics and Ethics of Care, might inform the way we approach the issue of transgender rights. I have suggested that the notion of Virtue Ethics may be helpful in opening people’s minds and priming them for the kind of profound transformation that may shake previously held beliefs. I have also proposed that Ethics of Care provides a normative framework to guide us in intervening on behalf of those who are marginalized. This last chapter will elaborate further on efforts to find a path toward the reconciliation of conservative Christian values with the acceptance and celebration of gender diversity. As I disclosed in the preface of this book, I strongly support the inclusion of transgender and gender-variant people in all areas of our social lives. I also have, in the past, suggested that evangelical Christians examine essentialist assumptions of gender in order to resolve the ethical conflict between religious liberty and issues of gender identity (de Jong, 2017). While I still believe this (as I believe in the need to consider all new research about gender), I realize that it may be necessary to first address the bigger question that still looms: How can communities which differ on basic questions of morality ever find common ground? Can dialogue overcome the barriers of strongly held worldviews and entrenched convictions? Here I would like to explore these questions and the possibility of using a moral framework that will allow us to consider both science and religious ethics in the dialogue about gender identity issues.

6  A PROPOSAL: MORALITY OVER LEGALITY 

79

A Pluralistic Morality Taking a step back, it may be useful to consider questions of moral ontology: What are the attributes of moral knowledge that have a bearing on how we approach ethical dilemmas? Thus, in the context of examining the issue of transgender rights versus religious liberty, it seems important to first examine the different elements that make up the construct of morality. Clearly, religious beliefs may constitute one such element. In fact, some believers propose that faith-based morality is objective and provides a standard for behavior that is immutable (Craig, W. L., 2012). However, skeptics would argue that a morality based on unproven beliefs is not objective. For example, Bloom (2015) suggests the following advantages of “scientific faith” over “religious faith”: “Science establishes conditions where rational argument is able to flourish, where ideas can be tested against the world, and where individuals can work together to surpass their individual limitations” (para. 19). Naturalists (people who do not believe in the supernatural) have suggested that the natural world can provide an objective morality. From this perspective, morality based on the natural world does not only include science, but also culturally accepted rules, as articulated below: Let’s look at the natural facts about morality in the real world. Most of morality consists of culturally objective truths. Most moral truths are best explained by social rules accepted by most members because they are members of that society and they were raised in that society. […] … A culture’s morality is objective because that morality is independent of whatever any individual person wishes morality to be. (Shook, 2010)

As seems to be indicated by this quote, religious ethics, if posited as cultural rules rather than as beliefs with an absolute value, can be part of an “objective” morality (also see Goodenough, 2003, for a discussion of morality in the context of religious naturalism). Meta-theories of morality have been formulated in various disciplines. From the perspective of a political philosopher, John Rawls (1997) suggested the idea of “public reason”, according to which just legal and political decisions are the result of a deliberative process, based on a plurality of values, but never on a fully comprehensive worldview, whether secular or religious. Michael Sandel, another political philosopher, also discusses the issue of conflicting rights from a justice perspective, arguing for “a politics

80 

D. H. DE JONG

of moral engagement” and endorsing the inclusion of religious ethics in public discourse (Sandel, 2009, 268–269). Justice-based approaches to morality offer the benefit of considering the role of power in ethical decision-­making. It may be noted here that justice and care conceptions of morality have been found to be compatible and complementary in terms of practical application (Botes, 2000; also see Harrington, 1999). In line with the multifaceted view of morality, Jonathan Haidt (2012), a social psychologist by training, has outlined six foundations of moral judgment: Care, Liberty, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity. As an explanation of political differences, he maintains that liberals tend to make moral judgments based on Care, Liberty, and Fairness, while conservatives consider all six foundations more or less equally. Additionally, given an evolutionary explanation, Haidt expresses a preference for the conservative approach. This view has been criticized as subjective, leaning heavily on moral justifications based on conservative/religious values at the expense of rational considerations (Boswell, 2015; Jost, 2012). Considering Haidt’s moral foundations, it is noteworthy that recent studies (Monroe & Plant, 2019) “suggest that, within the context of perceiving and behaving toward sexual outgroups, care and sanctity values are in tension with one another” (p. 343). According to this research, sanctity is associated with prejudice toward LGBT people (although it also showed that intentionally exposing people to the value of care can reduce this tendency). Actually, Haidt himself had suggested that, of his six moral foundations, conservatives “ are more willing than liberals to sacrifice Care and let some people get hurt in order to achieve their many other moral objectives” (Haidt, 2012, p. 184). As this brief discussion of meta-ethics illustrates, it is a rich field of study, a more thorough examination of which is well beyond the scope of this book. However, we can suggest, at this point, that objectivity in a moral sense is manifested by a consensus involving elements (sometimes complementary, sometimes competing) of equal value. One additional observation we may make concerns the role that religion can (and often does) play in ethical decision-making. For instance, according to polling, most Americans are of the opinion that it is “necessary to believe in God to be moral” (Pew Research Center, 2007, 2014). While these surveys also show that a smaller proportion of younger people subscribe to this view and that the overall percentage of respondents who endorse it is declining slightly, the influence of religion on moral judgment cannot be denied. To further the dialogue about religious liberty and transgender

6  A PROPOSAL: MORALITY OVER LEGALITY 

81

rights, we therefore need an ethical decision-making process that can accommodate this, as well as other sources of morality. As argued before, an ethical decision-making framework that is undergirded by a faith-based and absolutist conception of morality (“sin” versus “redemption”) rejects pluralistic thought. It also does not account for power differences between constituencies. In both respects, it defeats any dialogic process before it can even start. By contrast, a fruitful dialogue may occur when embedded in a model of morality that embraces the values of a pluralistic society, none of which are to be prioritized over the others. These values may well include generally accepted notions of respect for the dignity of all people, as derived from religious teachings. But could they not also include the value of scientific reasoning? In an article tracing the history of “scientific virtue”, Steven Shapin (2015), a sociologist of science, describes the tension between the “is” of science and the “ought” of morality (para. 18). He also notes a “resurgent scientism” and “the redefinition of moral problems as scientific problems” (para. 35), in—for example—the discussion about climate change. If, in the words of Shapin, scientists can be viewed as “trustworthy” (para. 42), is there a place for scientific virtue in morality (maybe under Haidt’s rubric of “authority”)? And if so, would that not also extend to a consideration of new scientific knowledge about gender identity, alongside other considerations of dignity, liberty, and equality? Science matters. Take, for example, the argument by Denny Burk, professor of biblical studies at Boyce College, that the “truth” about gender is to be found in Scripture (Burk, 2015, p. 96). Clearly, this position is based on belief, allowing him to make statements that have no basis in scientific fact, such as referring to “all the pathologies that lead a little boy to identify as a little girl” (Burk, 2015, p. 89). Contrary to this unsupported remark, a Dutch study showed that, in spite of external stressors, most of the adolescents with gender dysphoria in their sample did not show comorbidity (de Vries, Doreleijers, Steensma, & Cohen-Kettenis, 2011). Also, a study of young (socially transitioned) transgender children in the United States found no greater levels of depression and anxiety when compared to nontransgender controls (Olson, Durwood, DeMeules, & McLaughlin, 2016). There are promising signs of the possible integration of theology and science with respect to issues of sex and gender, such as in the work by DeFranza regarding intersex people and gender diversity (see DeFranza, 2011, 2016). A recent pronouncement by a German bishop is also

82 

D. H. DE JONG

noteworthy in this respect. As reported on the website of the Catholic Church in Germany and translated in a post by New Ways Ministry, bishop Dieter Geerlings suggested that the Catholic Church start to consider scientific findings in its discussion of homosexuality (Shine, 2019). While related to sexuality, the bishop’s comment is an acknowledgment of the role science can play in moral judgment and religious ethics, an acknowledgment equally relevant to the conversation about gender identity. Thus, in summary, the kind of pluralistic model of morality described above can provide a common framework for the dialogue about gender identity and faith between advocates from both the religious and the transgender communities. It would be Pollyannaish to think that some abstract idea about pluralistic morality will, by itself, pave the way to personal and social transformation. Rather, following agreement on a shared moral starting point, the next step will have to involve dialogue as a strategy of engagement. One issue that will surface in that process concerns the role of identity, since the validation and protection of social identities are considered powerful ingredients of conflict situations involving gender and religion (Reimer et  al., 2015, pp.  22–23). Interestingly, as pointed out by Berg (2018), both defenders of religious freedom and of LGBT rights share issues related to identity: They view their identity as essential in terms of how it impacts their conduct, privately and in social contexts, while—at the same time—it elicits animosity from opposing quarters. Will participants in the dialogue be able to deal with the substance of their disagreements in spite of the cognitive and emotional investments made with respect to their sense of identity? As mentioned in the previous chapter, Allport’s (1954) Contact Theory hypothesizes that interactions between groups that differ in identity increases acceptance, especially when people work toward shared goals. Thus, the increased acceptance of gay rights in the United States between 2007 and 2016 can, in part, be explained by the fact that sexual orientation is a concealed attribute, allowing gay persons to work alongside straight people prior to any personal disclosure (Charlesworth & Banaji, 2019). Certainly, the significant attitudinal change in the United States regarding same-sex marriage has shown that profound transformation can happen through such natural interactions. By contrast, the dialogue around gender identity and religious freedom may feel more artificial at first. Systematically collected information about the efficacy of that kind of

6  A PROPOSAL: MORALITY OVER LEGALITY 

83

dialogue—to the extent that it has occurred—is not yet available. Also, it should be noted that Contact Theory has not specifically addressed differences between groups in terms of morality. Additionally, there is some evidence that intergroup dialogue can actually reinforce pre-existing perspectives (DeTurk, 2006). On the other hand, there are positive experiences one can point to. For example, as part of the #MeToo movement, this country is beginning to engage in a national dialogue about sexual harassment that suggests the potential for change when issues are tackled head-on, as have other truth-and-reconciliation efforts. After all, new understandings require new experiences and new knowledge. Understanding members from another group, especially those from a group with diametrically opposing points of view, happens only if there is a way to interact and talk with one another. Thus, in spite of the risks and possible barriers, an intensified dialogue about religious freedom and nondiscrimination appears to be the only way forward.

From Moral Judgment to Dialogue and Transformation For dialogue to be effective, it needs to focus on understanding, rather than persuasion. This is an oft-repeated comment in the literature on dialogue and social change that makes intuitive sense. Nobody likes to be badgered into changing a moral position. True dialogue involves listening. Frustration on the part of transgender activists with conservative Christian views most often includes the observation of “not being listened to”, and evangelical Protestants as well as conservative Catholics have been taken to task for not paying attention to the “lived experience” of transgender and gender-variant people. Returning to the concept of a pluralistic morality, consideration of a minority’s “lived experience” as one of its components (in the category of “care”, for example) shows how such a model could inform dialogue. The previously cited work by Monroe and Plant (2019) indicates that interventions focusing on the notion of “care”, while falling short of “transformation”, can have a positive effect in shifting people’s moral values toward the acceptance of outgroups. Also, it may be remembered that ambitious perspectives on transformation through dialogue and reflection have been described in the literature with respect to education and pedagogy (Freire, 2000) and in approaches to conflict resolution (Lederach, 2003).

84 

D. H. DE JONG

Importantly, Lederach (2003), a lifelong scholar of conflict studies, suggests that transformation not only needs dialogue, but has to include a substantive examination of structural issues that impact human relationships. This second requirement for transformation, that is, the need to address power differentials between participants in the dialogue, is also made explicit in a proposed “agonistic model of dialogue” (Suransky & Alma, 2018; p. 37). Similarly, Ganesh and Zoller (2012) warn against dialogue as cooptation and advocate for an “agonistic perspective” (p.  85). One way to decrease differences in power is by strengthening one’s own community while engaging in dialogue. As Hopkins (2008) states: “… collective identification is a basis for social power … […] without autonomous community development dialogue may be worse than useless” (p. 367). Will the profound differences in moral views and power result in further polarization and a greater reliance on identity politics? There are reasons to be concerned. Consider, for instance, the following quote from an article “The Dangers of ‘Dialogue’” (Dreher, 2017), written in part as a response to Fr. Martin’s (2017) views about bridging the divide between the Catholic Church and the LGBT community: To be sure, not all dialogue is a bad idea. There’s nothing wrong with church leaders and ministers meeting with LGBT Christians to learn more about their lives, and how the church can help them live out its teachings more effectively, and can help non-gay Christians be more compassionate to them. But the teaching of the church in these matters, and the responsibility of all Christians to live it out, must be clearly non-negotiable. Before we sit down at the table, we had better be very clear about what’s at stake, both explicitly and implicitly. It has too often happened the liberals within various church circles have called for dialogue, but after they gained power within the church, declared that dialogue with the orthodox must end, because it would be wrong to have a dialogue with people who believe such immoral things (Dreher, 2017, para. 15).

The temptation to engage in identity politics exists on both sides of any controversial issue, but distrust, such as expressed in the quote above, needs to be overcome. As noted by Heyes (2016), identity politics … casts as authentic to the self or group an identity that in fact is defined by its opposition to an Other. Reclaiming such an identity as one’s own merely reinforces its dependence on this dominant Other, and further internalizes and reinforces an oppressive hierarchy. (Heyes, 2016, section 7, para. 7)

6  A PROPOSAL: MORALITY OVER LEGALITY 

85

Speaking at a gala for the Human Rights Campaign, Pete Buttigieg, the openly gay (and Christian) contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, also cautioned against identity politics (Guardian, 2019). As mentioned in the previous chapter, Keating (2013) argues for a “transformational identity politics” (p. 91) to disrupt the binary positioning of conventional identity politics and to create connection with others. Thus, in the end, the process of engagement might be a balancing act, requiring—on parallel tracks—dialogue alongside internal organizing, activism, and coalition building. It is important to remember the context of the conflict between religious freedom and transgender rights. Citing data from the General Social Survey, Ryan Burge, political scientist and co-founder of the website Religion in Public, notes that white Christians in the United States have become more politically conservative over the past 40 years. Considering the shrinking proportion of mainline Protestants, he comments: “If young people are the future of the church, it’s hard to see how both white Catholics and white evangelicals can effectively reach out to the younger generations when their politics become further and further polarized” (Burge, 2019, para. 17). Also, while not specifically addressing issues of gender identity, a study by the Public Religion Research Institute found: Young adults (age 18 to 29) who left their childhood religion are about three times more likely than seniors (age 65 and older) to say negative religious teachings about and treatment of the gay and lesbian community was a primary reason for leaving their childhood faith (39% vs 12%, respectively). (Jones, Cox, Cooper, & Lienesch, 2016, p. 6)

Presumably, negative teachings about gender identity are having a similar effect. Issues of gender and gender identity have become part of the polarization along the lines of religion and age. Young people especially seek to blend new understandings of these issues with religious ethics that together allow for a celebration of diversity—and they want their church to respond. Therefore, a dialogue about gender and gender identity belongs at the top of the agenda in communities of faith, as the following quote from a Catholic deacon and parent of a transgender child so powerfully conveys: I hope and pray that a true process of dialogue happens. If it does, perhaps the institutional church will discover what so many fortunate Catholic families like mine have discovered about their gay or trans children: they are part

86 

D. H. DE JONG

of God’s beautiful, diverse creation, not aberrations of nature or products of some confused ideology. Their presence in our lives has helped open our eyes to not just the LGBTQ community but to all the marginalized and oppressed people that we as Christians are called to embrace and love. Our daughter has done absolutely nothing to undermine Catholic marriage and family but has in fact has brought our entire family much closer together. (Dever, 2019)

Hopefully, this short book has shown the need for the inclusion of new scientific knowledge about gender and gender identity as a prerequisite for the debate about transgender rights and religious freedom. Arguably, it has shown the limitations of attempts to resolve the conflict by legal means and the potential of approaching it from a pluralistic moral framework. Perhaps it has also demonstrated that there is an interest and a willingness to move forward through reflection and dialogue. It seems that there is much to be gained by engaging in such a process. After all, it is not only about religious values and the science of gender identity, or about the survival of the Church—it is foremost about the dignity and inclusion of all people.

References Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Berg, T. C. (2018). Religious freedom and nondiscrimination. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 50(1), 181–209. Retrieved from https://www.luc.edu/ media/lucedu/law/students/publications/llj/pdfs/vol50/issue-1/ berg_181-209.pdf Bloom, P. (2015, November 24). Scientific faith is different from religious faith. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/science/ archive/2015/11/why-scientific-faith-isnt-the-same-as-religious-faith/417357/ Boswell, J. (2015, July 5). The real free riders. On Jonathan Haidt’s defense of conservatism. Retrieved from https://evolution-institute.org/the-real-free-riderson-jonathan-haidts-defense-of-conservatism/ Botes, A. (2000). A comparison between the ethics of justice and the ethics of care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(5), 1071–1075. Burge, R. (2019, May 29). Why politics may kill white churches. Religion news service. Retrieved from https://religionnews.com/2019/05/29/whypolitics-may-kill-white-churches/ Burk, D. (2015). Training our kids in a transgender world. In J.  Parnell & O. Strachan (Eds.), Designed for joy: How the gospel impacts men and women, identity and practice (pp. 89–98). Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

6  A PROPOSAL: MORALITY OVER LEGALITY 

87

Charlesworth, T. E. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2019). Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes: I. long-terms change and stability from 2007-2016. Psychological Science, 30(2), 174–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618813087 Craig, W. L. (2012, April 15). Keeping moral epistemology and moral ontology distinct. Retrieved from https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/questionanswer/keeping-moral-epistemology-and-moral-ontology-distinct/ DeFranza, M. K. (2011). Intersex and Imago: Sex, gender, and sexuality in postmodern theological anthropology. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. DeFranza, M. K. (2016, March 18). Transgender 103: Sex stamped on the body (continuing the dialogue with M.  Yarhouse). Retrieved from https://www. megandefranza.com/blog/2016/2/26/transgender-103-sex-stampedon-the-body-continuing-the-dialogue-with-m-yarhouse de Jong, D. (2017). Living in the tension in-between–faculty members talk about faith and transgender issues in christian social work programs. Social work & Christianity, 44(3), 75–93. DeTurk, S. (2006). The power of dialogue: Consequences of intergroup dialogue and their implications for agency and alliance building. Communication Quarterly, 54(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370500270355 Dever, R. (2019, June 13). The Vatican’s new document on gender: Is there hope?  Retrieved from https://www.newwaysministry.org/2019/06/13/ the-vaticans-new-document-on-gender-is-there-hope/ de Vries, A.  L. C., Doreleijers, T.  A. H., Steensma, T.  D., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2011). Psychiatric comorbidity in gender dysphoric adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(11), 1195–1202. Dreher, R. (2017, September 13). The dangers of ‘dialogue’. The American conservative. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-dangersof-dialogue/ Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Ganesh, S., & Zoller, H.  M. (2012). Dialogue, activism, and democratic social change. Communication Theory, 22(1), 66–91. Goodenough, U. (2003). Religious naturalism and naturalizing morality. Zygon, 38(1), 101–109. Green, E. (2016, September 14). Even the government’s smartest lawyers can’t figure out religious liberty. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/us-commission-civil-rightsreligious-liberty-report/499874/ Guardian. (2019, May 12). Pete Buttigieg warns Democrats about lure of identity politics. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/usnews/2019/may/12/pete-buttigieg-human-rights-campaign-trump Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

88 

D. H. DE JONG

Harrington, M. (1999). Care and equality: Inventing a new family politics. New York, NY: Knopf. Heyes, C. (2016). “Identity politics”. In Edward N.  Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ spr2018/entries/identity-politics/ Hopkins, N. (2008). Identity, practice and dialogue. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 18(4), 363–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.954. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/casp.954 Jones, R. P., Cox, D., Cooper, B., & Lienesch, R. (2016). Exodus: Why Americans are leaving religion – And why they’re unlikely to come back. Washington, DC: Public Religion Research Institute. Retrieved from https://www.prri.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/09/PRRI-RNS-Unaffiliated-Report.pdf Jost, J. T. (2012, August 3). Left and right, right and wrong. Science, 33, 525–526. Retrieved from https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/337/6094/ 525.full.pdf Keating, A. (2013). “I am your other I”: Transformational identity politics. In Transformation now! Toward a post-oppositional politics of change (pp. 89–110). Urbana, Chicago, Springfield: University of Illinois Press. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/j.ctt3fh5zv.7 Lederach, J. P. (2003). The little book of conflict transformation. Intercourse, PA: Good Books. Martin, J. (2017). Building a bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT community can enter into a relationship of respect, compassion, and sensitivity. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Monroe, A. E., & Plant, E. A. (2019). The dark side of morality: Prioritizing sanctity over care motivates denial of mind and prejudice toward sexual outgroups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(2), 342–360. https://doi. org/10.1037/xge0000537 Olson, K. R., Durwood, L., DeMeules, M., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2016). Mental health of transgender children who are supported in their identities. Pediatrics, 137(3), e20153223. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-3223 Pew Research Center. (2007). Chapter 3: Views of religion and morality. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2007/10/04/chapter-3-viewsof-religion-and-morality/#updated-may-27-2014 Pew Research Center. (2014). Views on faith and morality vary by age… and education. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2014/03/13/ worldwide-many-see-belief-in-god-as-essential-to-morality/pg-belief-ingod-03-13-2014-03/ Rawls, J. (1997). The idea of public reason revisited. The University of Chicago Law Review, 64(3), 765–807. Retrieved from https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5633&context=uclrev

6  A PROPOSAL: MORALITY OVER LEGALITY 

89

Reimer, L. E., Schmitz, C. L., Janke, E. M., Askerov, A., Strahl, B. T., & Matyok, T.  G. (2015). Transformative change: An introduction to peace and conflict studies. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? New York, NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Shapin, S. (2015, January 20). The virtue of scientific thinking. Boston Review. Retrieved from http://bostonreview.net/steven-shapin-scientism-virtue Shine, R. (2019, August 25). German bishop reaffirms his request for church blessings and civil partnerships for same-gender couples. Retrieved from https:// www.newwaysministr y.org/2019/08/25/german-bishop-reaf firmshis-request-for-church-blessings-and-civil-partnerships-for-same-gender-couples/ Shook, J. (2010, April 6). There is objective morality in nature. Retrieved from https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/there_is_objective_morality_in_nature/ Suransky, C., & Alma, H. (2018). An agonistic model of dialogue. Journal of Constructive Psychology, 31(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/1072053 7.2017.1298487 Yarhouse, M. A. (2015). Understanding gender dysphoria: Navigating transgender issues in a changing culture. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Index

A Activism, 6, 57–73, 78, 85 Advocacy, 6, 47, 57–73 Agender, ix, 4 Agonistic (model, perspective), 84 Allport, Gordon, 60, 82 American Civil Liberties Union, 18, 33 B “Bathroom bills,” 22, 48, 57, 63 Bigender, 4 Bornstein, Kate, 2 Burk, Denny, 81 Butler, Judith, 20, 21 C Call to Action, 19 Campus Pride, 22, 47 Catholic Church, 16, 18, 19, 73, 82, 84 Catholic Social Workers’ National Association, 48, 49

Center for Faith, Sexuality & Gender, 12, 13, 15 Christians for Biblical Equality, 12 Church Militant, 19 Church of Latter-day Saints, 20 Cisgender, 3, 5, 62 Civil Rights Act, 31, 34, 45, 46 Clinton, Bill, 30 “Clobber passages,” 16, 72 Commission on Unalienable Rights, 36 “Compelling interest,” 17, 37 Complementarianism, 6, 10–20 Complementarity, 12, 15, 17 “Conscience rule,” 36 Contact Theory, 60–62, 68, 82, 83 Conversion therapy, 4, 15, 72 Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), 34, 35, 48, 50 Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, 11, 12, 70 Courage International, 15 Cox, Laverne, 1, 2

© The Author(s) 2020 D. H. de Jong, Conservative Christianity, Gender Identity, and Religious Liberty, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42393-3

91

92 

INDEX

D Danvers Statement, 11 DeFranza, Megan, 14, 81 Department of Education, 36, 46, 47 Department of Health and Human Services, 36, 37 Department of Housing and Urban Development, 36 Department of Justice, 37 Department of Labor, 37 Dignity USA, 19 Direct action, 72 Disability framework, 14, 51 Diversity framework, 14, 51 “Doing gender,” 20 Do No Harm Act, 33, 34 E Eden Invitation, 15 Employment Division v. Smith, 30 Employment Nondiscrimination Act, 34 “Equal-access rule,” 36 Equal Campus Access Act, 33 Equality Act, 34 Essentialism, 6, 10–20 Ethics of Care, 50, 51, 58, 60, 61, 63, 66, 78 Evangelical, viii, 9, 10, 12–16, 19, 22, 31, 35, 49, 52, 57, 60, 78, 83, 85 F “Fairness for All,” 35 Federal Bureau of Prisons, 36 Feinberg, Leslie, 2 First Amendment, 31, 32, 37 First Amendment Defense Act, 32 G Gender binary, 10–20, 53, 64 Gender diverse, viii, 5, 14

Gender fluid, 4 Gender identity, vii–ix, 1–6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17–22, 33, 34, 36, 37, 46–53, 58, 60, 71, 73, 78, 81, 82, 85, 86 Gender ideology, 16–18, 49 Gender nonconforming, 2, 4, 16, 71 Gender PAC, 2 Genderqueer, 4, 5, 35, 60 “Gender theory,” 17 Gender transition, 3, 15, 18, 19, 33, 50, 51, 53, 64, 70 Gender variance, 1, 4, 15, 18, 51–53, 78 Gender variant, 5, 9, 12, 14, 15, 21, 29, 46, 50, 78, 83 Generation Z, 4 Gospel Coalition, The, 15 H Haidt, Jonathan, 80, 81 Hartke, Austen, 11, 16 Hobby Lobby, 31 Human Rights Campaign, 2, 16, 46, 47, 57, 85 I Identity politics, 20, 59, 84, 85 Integrated framework, 78 Integrity framework, 14, 51 Intersectionality/intersectionalities, 20, 59, 71, 72 J Jenner, Caitlyn, 1 Johnson, Marsha, 2 Jones, David Albert, 2, 5, 10, 17, 18 Jorgensen, Christine, 1 Justice, viii, 31, 58, 59, 79, 80

 INDEX 

K Kinky Boots, 1

Ogborn, Anne, 2 Orange is the New Black, 1

L Lederach, John Paul, 59, 60, 83, 84 Lepanto Institute, 19 LifeSite, 19

P Patten, Alan, 30 Peace studies, 58, 59 Performative, gender as, 21 Pluralistic morality, 79–83 Prison Rape Elimination Act, 36 Project Blitz, 33

M Martin, Fr. James, 18, 73, 84 Martinez v. Christian Legal Society, 30–31 Masterpiece Cakeshop, 31 Mollenkott, Virginia Ramey, 4 Moore, Russell, 12 Mormon Church, 20 N Nashville Statement, 12, 70 National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), 35 National Association of Social Workers (NASW), 48 National Center for Transgender Equality, 36 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), 48 Naturalism, 79 “Natural law,” 36 New Ways Ministry, 19, 82 Nonbinary, ix, 1–6, 29 North American Association of Christians in Social Work (NACSW), 48, 49 O Obama, Barack, 36 Obama administration, 29, 36, 37, 46, 47

Q Q Christian Fellowship, 15 Queer, 4, 5, 9–22 Queer Theory, 5, 6, 20, 21 R Rawls, John, 58, 79 Reformation Project, The, 14–16 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 30, 31, 33–34 Restorative justice, 59 Revoice, 15 Richards, Renée, 1 Rivera, Sylvia, 2 S Sandel, Michael, 79, 80 Serano, Julia, 2 Seventh-day Adventist Church, 20 “Shame list,” 47 Shapin, Steven, 81 Shaughnessy, Sister Mary Angela, 19 “Side A,” 14 “Side B,” 15, 16 “Side X,” 15, 16 Social construction, 4, 20 Soulforce, 14

93

94 

INDEX

Southern Baptist Convention, 12, 15, 32 Sprinkle, Preston, 12–14 Stephens, Aimee, 31, 37 Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries, 2 Stryker, Susan, 21, 22 Supreme Court, 30–32, 35 T Title VII, 34, 46 Title IX, 6, 19, 22, 30, 36, 60 Title IX, exemption to, 22, 37, 45–53, 57 Trans, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 22, 57–73, 85 Trans∗, 5 Transexual Menace, The, 2 Transformation, viii, 6, 58–61, 67, 69–71, 73, 78, 82–86 “Transformational identity politics,” 60, 85 Transformative justice, 58, 59 Transgender, vii–ix, 1–6, 9–16, 18–22, 29–38, 46, 48–53, 57, 58, 60–66, 72, 73, 77–83, 85, 86 Transgender military ban, 36

Transgender Nation, 2 Transitional justice, 59 Trump, Donald, 16, 35, 47 Trump administration, 6, 32, 34–38, 47 U United Nations, 36 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 32, 77 U.S. Conference of Bishops, 17 Utah Compromise, 34, 35 Utilitarianism, 58 V Virtue Ethics, 50, 51, 58, 60, 61, 63, 66, 78 W Wilchins, Riki, 2 Y Yarhouse, Mark, 14, 51, 52, 78