Gender Blending: Is it Wrong?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Carpenter

Brother Epley, honestly...there is no confusion. There is sin in the church, horrible sin even where the sexes are separated and distinguished with great effort and consequence.

Funny, I was in the supermarket line yesterday and a very elderly man in coveralls sauntered up while I was looking at the Enquirer. He said, very hard of hearing and in a loud voice, "What is old HIll Billy up to now?"
I told him, "Well, it looks like old Billy has been cheating again."

He said to me way too loud, "Them two are nothing BUT cheaters, standing on a pack of lies, we have no business putting a woman in the white house anyway!!!"

I smiled in agreement, and slowly stepped away as the cashier scanned my Captain Crunch...

Priceless!!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

These are unisex.

Is it wrong to wear them?

A dirty white terrycloth robe is the only thing that would go well with these for a woman.

[Brad Murphy]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

The first one, at least.

And I think we should respect how God created us.

What about shaving (men=faces, women=legs and armpits) and circumcision?

[Michlow]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Let me see if I understand your point. You're saying that if babies can be born with the wrong parts outside (in the case of a deformity or birth defect, e.g., "intersexed"), that it falls to reason that the inside (the mind and bodily systems and functions) can be equally flawed from birth. Correct?

Yes.

There are still so many things about the human anatomy that we are ignorant of. What role Brain Chemistry and the endocrine system play in things like gender identity is just one of them.

The only point that I am trying to get across is that it is a complicated issue, that we are incapable of adequately judging.

i.e. God being the only one who truly knows us (our heart, our thoughts, and our biological makeup), only he is worthy of judging us.

[chosenbyone]

Originally Posted by Prodigal

Consideration should be given to the fact that an estimated 1 in 1500 are born "intersexed" or are determined to be neither exclusively male or female. Actual rates are higher since these rates are determined when a "specialist" in sex assignment is called in.

Depending on "culture", intersexed individuals have been expected to conform to either a male or female "gender role". In some cultures, intersexed individuals are included in a "third gender" classification.

To quote the Intersex Society of North America:

"In cases of intersex, doctors and parents need to recognize, however, that gender assignment of infants with intersex conditions as boy or girl, as with assignment of any infant, is preliminary. Any child—intersex or not—may decide later in life that she or he was given the wrong gender assignment; but children with certain intersex conditions have significantly higher rates of gender transition than the general population, with or without treatment".

It would appear that based on these scientic facts, not everyone is born either exclusively male or female, and that "gender identity" is more of what is between your ears rather than what form of genitalia you were born with.

I would think that the occurance of intersexed births would blur the lines of sexual/gender distinctives that are typically culturally based.

Hey, friend -

I haven't heard from you in awhile...have you been lurking? Typically, I steer clear of posting on threads that ridicule other people that were different in the eyes of the mainstream. I have found myself cringing when derogative terms were tossed about or when someone declared those individuals disgusting.

No wonder the church hasn't seen revivals in the lesbian, gay and transgendered communities when all they saw from the church was scorn, ridicule and rejection. At the end of the day, they needed Jesus just as much, if not more, than Patty Pentecost on the second row.

Thanks for reminding us this morning that many people who were "gender blenders" were ones who's sex wasn't clearly defined at birth. Of course, there were others who chose to dress as the opposite sex, but they shouldn't be called names by those of us who claimed to be Christians.

God bless you,

CB1

[Jermyn Davidson]

For the wiser ones among us, in order for "Tracy-now-Thomas" to obtain eternal salvation, would she have to go and undue her surgery to make her a him again? Is it even possible for "Tracy" to go back?

[The Mrs]

Originally Posted by 1399

For the wiser ones among us, in order for "Tracy-now-Thomas" to obtain eternal salvation, would she have to go and undue her surgery to make her a him again? Is it even possible for "Tracy" to go back?

It's the other way around. She WAS Tracy...now she's, er...he's Thomas.

She would need surgery to make him a her again.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

That was seriously insulting.

I think you have a very hypocritical stance concerning Deut 22:5.

On the one hand you say it has nothing to do with britches, and on the other you say women are to look like women and men like men. Can you not see why the UPC has taken the stand it has concerning women wearing britches?

They just draw the line in a different place than you and, honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think it is wise.

The stance held by the manual is the one that's hypocritical ... in one breath they point to a scripture that states that there must be gender distinction in clothing ... yet we know that the garments worn essentially were the same ... except for fringes, colors, etc.

And now we have a similar situation today in which "britches" differ in style, fit and cut ...

Yet, we have a group that will not fellowship the Body ... or say that one is heaven-bound because of this issue.

1. PP, would you wear female pants ... why or why not ... ?



2. When you go shopping can you make a distinction as to men's pants and female pants ... why or why not?

[rgcraig]

CB1,

I am sorry you are disappointed in me and disgusted was a strong word.

Tracy/Thomas deciding to have a baby is just messed up - that's what I was addressing more than anything.

[chosenbyone]

Originally Posted by 1399

For the wiser ones among us, in order for "Tracy-now-Thomas" to obtain eternal salvation, would she have to go and undue her surgery to make her a him again? Is it even possible for "Tracy" to go back?

This post reminded me of a time in the early 90s when I was asked to accompany a brother in the church who was giving a transsexual a bible study. The man who was receiving the bible study had been on hormone therapy for nearly a year and was anticipating having a gender reassignment surgery. If you would have seen him passing by on the street you would have never known he was a man.

He was touched by the presence of the Lord and expressed a desire to come to church and be baptized. I still remember the look on his face when the brother told him that he would have dress as a male when he came to church. Needless to say, he never came to church to be baptized and I had often wondered what became of him.

Afterwards, I asked the brother why he didn't allow him to come to church the way he was and let the Lord sort things out. He mentioned that people wouldn't except him wearing woman's clothing in the house of God.

His body was drastically changed by the hormones he took and it would have been a long time and possibly surgery in order for it to resemble a man's body again.

I questioned how many saints and pastors would have welcomed him into their church family looking the way he did?