“You Look Like a Girl”
The Biblical Prohibition against Cross-Dressing and Other Transgender Behaviours
I’ve discussed the issue of homosexual sex and transgenderism in an earlier post. Here I want to take a look at other transgender behaviours[1] having to do with physical appearance. These behaviours include, for example, cross-dressing, how one wears one’s hair, and bodily modification by hormonal therapy or surgery. Just as the Bible condemns homosexual behaviour, it likewise condemns these transgender behaviours.
Scripture on Transgender Behaviours
The Bible seeks to preserve distinctions between the genders in general. We’ve seen this already with respect to sexual intercourse: licit sexual relations require that the two participants be of the opposite sex, otherwise the sexual act is sinful. However, sex isn’t the only area where there the distinction between the sexes ought to be preserved. In his condemnation of gay sex in 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul uses the word malakos to describe the passive male partner. Malakos, recall, is a word that describes an effeminate man, one who blurs the distinction between the sexes, which isn’t limited to how he has sex. It refers also to men who talk, behave, or appear like women. While Paul has gay sex especially in mind here, Scripture involves a general prohibition against blurring sex distinctions.
For instance, the Law states:
A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. (Deut. 22:5)
And elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, Paul writes:
Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him. . . ? (1 Cor. 11:14)
Add to these passages the ones condemning homosexual intercourse (e.g., Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 6:9–10; 1 Tim. 1:10), and the general principle is clear: the confusion of sexes is a sin. While Scripture mentions only cross-dressing, hair, and sex, the principle applies to other transgender behaviours. If it’s sinful to look like someone of the opposite sex just in terms of hair and dress, then surely it must also be sinful to do so via hormonal therapy and surgery.
Nature and Culture
Now, someone might object that the prohibition in Deuteronomy was fundamentally a command to the Israelites to dissociate from their pagan neighbours, the assumption being that cross-dressing was a feature of Canaanite religion. However, even if the prohibition did have Canaanite religion in mind, Romans 1:26–27 and 1 Corinthians 11:14 indicate that Scripture prohibits the confusion of sex distinctions not on the basis of religious or cultural considerations, but on the basis of nature. Transgender behaviours are sinful insofar as they are violations of nature.
To be sure, while the general principle is to not confuse sex distinctions, there is some flexibility as to how this is applied from culture to culture. For example, let’s take the prohibition against a woman wearing a man’s clothing. In a Canadian context, if I give my girlfriend my plaid shirt or jacket to wear because she failed to dress warmly enough, she wouldn’t be sinning by wearing my clothes. Her doing so wouldn’t be an act of blurring gender distinctions, but of receiving a thoughtful action. And arguably, this would be an instance not of confusing, but of reinforcing gender distinctions, as the man is expected to offer up his jacket to the woman in such contexts.
As for Paul’s comment about men wearing long wear, the exact length can vary depending on context, and I think how the hair is styled is relevant too.[2] The important thing is that within one’s context, one shouldn’t try to look like the opposite sex. In the Western context, there are acceptable masculine and feminine ways of wearing long and short hair (e.g., think of metalheads and pixie cuts). But if a man has long hair and it’s too nice, well. . . .
“In Christ There Is No Male and Female”
Finally, since this post has emphasized sex differences, it’s worth considering the following passage:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28)
Someone might take this to mean that the differences between male and female are morally irrelevant, so the transgender behaviours discussed in this post are actually permissible. However, what Paul is talking about here is that certain factors are unimportant with respect to the gift of grace in salvation. The point here is that whether one is male or female, that is irrelevant as to whether one deserves the gift of salvation and becomes a member of the one community in Jesus Christ. It doesn’t follow from this that transgender behaviours aren’t sinful.
[1] By “transgender behaviour,” I mean an action or practice typically associated with transgender persons, done for the sake of making speech, or appearance, or anatomy conform to one’s gender identity (e.g., preferred pronoun usage, cross-dressing, hormonal therapy, genital surgery). For more definitions, click here.
[2] Funny enough, in nature, lions and peacocks are the ones adorned with more fur and feather than their female counterparts (elegantly so for peacocks), yet it’s these features that set apart the sexes within their species.
I hope we can discuss this further, especially in light of the new action plan launched by our Prime Minister.
If one violates nature by the way they wear their hair, how are metalheads and pixie cuts not sinful on the basis of culture?