‘What exactly do you mean by Biblical Dysphoria?’
I can hear the fundamentalist guardians of the truth bleating already. After all, you can’t mention their Bible without the hackles being raised. Not if you’re queer, anyway.
Sheep though they may be proud to be, I doubt their shepherd would have any problem with the terms ~ either of them!.
But then, The Shepherd would know what Biblical Dysphoria is, and what the alternative is also.
I can’t see those who consider they own the term ‘Queen of Heaven’ being exactly thrilled either.
So why use these terms?
Is it to offend?
Certainly not.
I am defined, clinically, by the term dysphoria and do I find it offensive?
I’m called a lot worse, too.
The word dysphoria comes from from the Greek dusphori, meaning distress, from dusphoros, meaning hard to bear. Dusdysphoria is, then, a state or mood of dissatisfaction, restlessness, or anxiety.
Dysphoric is the adjective.
Dictornary definitions vary and include:
dys•pho•ri•a (ds-fôr-, -fr-) ~ An emotional state characterized by anxiety, depression, or unease;
dysphoria – abnormal depression and discontent;
Others speak of depression – sad feelings of gloom and inadequacy, discontent (again), discontentedness, discontentment – a longing for something better than the present situation
Dysphoria is, of course, the downside of euphoria.
So where does this fit as a term to define some aspect of The Bible.
Simple ~ literalists consider those with gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder or Harry Benjamin Syndrome as being sinners because of it.
The question is often asked: “What does the Bible say about transsexualism / transgenderism? Is gender identity disorder / gender dysphoria the result of sin?” http://www.gotquestions.org/transsexualism-gender-identity-disorder.html
Of course, the answer is yes, because Bible literalists ~ like Joe McCarthy and communists ~ see sinners under every bed.
The following answer is provided on the listed website:
‘Transsexualism, also known as transgenderism, Gender Identity Disorder (GID), or gender dysphoria, is a desire to change one’s sex or to fulfill the role of the opposite gender. Transsexuals / transgenders usually describes themselves as “trapped” in a body that does not match their gender. They will probably practice transvestism / transvestitism and may also seek hormone therapy and/or surgery to bring their bodies into conformity with their perceived gender.
The Bible has plenty to say about human sexuality.
Most basic to our understanding of sex is that God created two (and only two) genders: “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). All the modern-day speculation about numerous genders—or even a gender “continuum” with unlimited genders—is unbiblical.’
This, in itself, shows a certain degree of anticipatory manipulation. People experiencing gender dysphoria ~ whether M2F or F2M ~ still identify as male or female. The idiosyncracy is biological, not semantic, not binary.
Some even have the audacity to suggest they live outside the binary.
The website continues –
‘In Psalm 139, we learn that God fashions each one of us. “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made. . . . My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. . . . your eyes saw my unformed body” (verses 13-16). God’s creation of each individual must surely include His designation of gender/sex. His wonderful work leaves no room for mistakes; no one is born with the “wrong body.”’
It seems a long haul from, on the one hand, saying that what God has created is perfect and, on the other, that there is no room for mistakes. If the crippled child is as God made it and thereby perfect, so is the transgendered person. Doesn’t this mirror the literalist’s argument?
But that’s the literalist’s crutch, isn’t it? Not that literalists have an achilles heel. Oh, no, they have God on their side.
Don’t they?
It’s all about choice for the literalists.
Their cyclic argument would have it that being transgendered (how I hate that word), being gay or lesbian is a choice rather than a condition made ` or allowed ~ by God.
I guess if you live in a cave and have never met a queer person you might think that ~ but it’s simply baloney.
The web-answer is further developed:
‘After the fall of man, it did not take long for gender issues to become confused. In Abraham’s day, homosexuality was widespread in some cities (Genesis 19:1-7; Jude 7). The Bible is unmistakably clear that homosexuality is a sinful perversion of God’s gift of sexuality (Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).’
I’m seriously concerned that Leviticus is missed from this litany of interpretive misrepresentation.
‘In the Law, transvestism / transvestitism was specifically forbidden: “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this” (Deuteronomy 22:5).’
Yet priests wear frocks … sorry, robes.
And most of the representations of Jesus I was presented with as I grew up had him in quite a comely smock.
‘Another possible reference to transsexualism is 1 Corinthians 6:9, where “male prostitutes” is listed as a separate category from “homosexual offenders.” The King James Version uses the word “effeminate” here; that is to say, the “male prostitutes” might be transsexual men who act as women.’
And the literalists fail to remind us that the King James version is a translation from a translation, never a particularly reputable method of ensuring accuracy.
‘The Bible calls all such gender distortion sin.’
‘Transgenderism is not genetically based’ ~ the author says ~ ‘and it is not simply a psychological disorder; it is rebellion against God’s plan. But following this realization is good news: sin can be forgiven and lives can be changed through faith in Christ. The Corinthian believers are an example of such a change: “And [homosexuals] is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11). There is hope for any sinner, transsexuals, transgenders, and transvestites included, because of God’s forgiveness available in Jesus Christ.’
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
It’s as simple as that.
Well, it is if you’re as simple as that.
But if you’re not, then you’ll know that gender dysphoria is a medico/clinical condition with an hormonal in-utero source.
Like many birth disabilities it can be corrected ~ and without the need to ever suggest that God got it wrong.
God got it right ~ he gives us all specific challenges and this is the challenge for the gender dysphoric.
This, and dealing with the pervasive stupidity of Bible literalists.
And of course there’s good old ~ and I mean old ~ Deuteronomy.
Deut 22:6-12
6 If you come across a bird’s nest beside the road, either in a tree or on the ground, and the mother is sitting on the young or on the eggs, do not take the mother with the young.
7 You may take the young, but be sure to let the mother go, so that it may go well with you and you may have a long life.
8 When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.
9 Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled.
10 Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together.
11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.
12 Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.
If we’re not allowed to dress like the opposite sex because the Bible says so, maybe we should be observing some of the other ‘laws’ listed above as well.
Mind you, I am careful to keep my ox and goat apart when I ploughing.
But what about those two offending verses that condemn the transgendered?
Do they really, when translated carefully and accurately, issue such a condemnation?
The first verse, from the two relevent translations, is:
Deut 22:5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. (KJV)
Deut 22:5
A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. (NIV)
This verse presents difficulties because of the way it has been translated.
Put simply, an accurate translation from the Hebrew would be:
‘Never cause (or force) a warriors weapon to be used by a woman or weak person; neither dress warriors armour on a woman or weak person for to Yahveh, God of Host, disgusting is such that do so.’
The background to this is historical and is as follows:
‘Jewish soldiers adopted women’s dress as a camouflage during military operations. Josephus, first-century historian, recorded this custom as part of the strategy of a band of soldiers led by John of Gishala:
While they decked their hair, and put on women’s garments, and were besmeared with ointments: and that they might appear very comely, they had paint under their eyes, and imitated not only the ornaments, but also the busts of women . . . while their faces looked like the faces of women, they killed with their right hands; and when their gait was effeminate, they presently attacked men and became warriors . . . and drew their swords from under their finely dyed cloaks, and killed everybody whom they came upon.’ (Whiston, 1777:242)
The second verse is, mercifully, from the New Testament.
It’s worth remembering that this translation (and other versions that generate from this one) are the only ones that use the word ‘effeminate’.
Later we’ll ask why.
In this verse there are problems with the translation, the interpretation of some of the words and the translating from the original.
1 Cor 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (KJV)
1 Cor 6:9-10
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. (NIV)
It has to be said that these two versions are so at odds with each other and the original as to be meaningless in a modern context.
There is considerable room for debate around the use of the term ‘effeminate’ and also the concept of ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’ and the extraordinary ‘male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders’.
From the 16th to the 18th centuries the term “effeminate” did not mean what it means to us today but was applied to a class of men who were notorious womanizers.
They were flamboyantly heterosexual.
Another source tells us: ‘These men pursued women as a career, often living off the older rich women whom they seduced. These men were so interested in seducing women that they disdained the world of men to live in the world of women. So instead of being with the men in the hunt, in the tavern, and in the smoking room discussing politics, they spent all their time with women in the parlour, at tea and in the garden gossiping, playing cards and talking fashion.
These men were concerned greatly about fashion, but only about male fashion. The most famous of these men was Casanova. This is the kind of man that people thought of in the 16th-18th Century when the word “effeminate” was used.
An etymological look at the time which backs this up is the word weakling, coined by Tyndale 1526 from weak as a loan-translation of Luther’s Weichling “effeminate man,” from Ger. weich “soft”.
Thus we can see how to the KJV translators the word “effeminate” might have seemed to them an appropriate term for the idea of the morally soft and weak.’
If this is correct then the term ‘effeminate’ had nothing to do with men who want to be women but, rather, men who, in the eyes of the real men of the day, had no moral fibre.
The above alternatives to the bigot translations simply observe that there is no scriptural basis for condemnation, scorn, or reproof of the transgendered but another, historically accurate, interpretation altogether.
The following is an interesting article which argues the same premise but from a literalist’s perspective. I have reproduced it in its entirety.
Homosexuality, Bisexuality, Transgender in the Bible
When we use the most conservative sources available today for our Bible research, we find the Bible does not condemn persons whose sexual orientation is other than heterosexuality.
When studying what the Bible has to say on Homosexuality, Bisexuality, and Transdender Expressions, we use The Strong’s Concordance, Young’s Concordance, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, The King James Version of the Bible, The New King James Version of the Bible, the New International Version Study Bible, Hebrew and Greek Interlinear Bibles, Liddell and Scott Greek Dictionaries, Vine’s Dictionaries, and many other “Conservative” standard resources.
These are the very sources of scholarship used by so-called “Christian” groups that claim the Bible condemns us. What we have found is these are the very sources of scholarship that clearly show we are not condemned in the Bible. We have found that the more “Conservative” the approach to the Bible, the more one leans on “Conservative” resources such as those named above, the more clearly one will see the Bible makes no condemnation of us. In fact, there are wonderful and famous examples of male and female same-sex loves, bisexual loves, and even a couple of gender alternative expressions in key places in our Bible. Therefore, we declare in the Name of Jesus Christ, that the Bible does not condemn the Christian Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender person, or Heterosexual person who supports us.
The writer of this paper, Br. Shawn Francis Benedict, Pastor of Ray Of Hope Church, starts from the point of view that the Holy Bible is the inerrant (contains no errors), inspired Word of God, and is the ONLY infallible (unerring, certain) authority on which the Christian can base his or her Salvation. To be frank, this is just about the most Conservative Hermeneutical (science of interpretation) approach one can take to the Bible today. When this Literal method of Biblical Interpretation is correctly applied to the subject of Homosexuality the conclusion is astonishingly the opposite of the teaching that is often proclaimed by “Conservative Christians” or the “Christian Right.” “Conservative Christians” claim to be interpreting the Bible “literally” when studying Homosexuality. In fact, it will be shown here that their own method of Biblical Interpretation (the Literal Method) proves the Bible in no citation of chapter or verse ever condemns true Homosexuals or their mutual expressions of Love.
At the same time, we do not abandon the Holy Scriptures for a “Liberal Left” point of Theology. To abandon the Literal interpretation is spiritual suicide for the GLBTQS Christian. The Holy Scriptures are our ONLY sure defense to show God’s position in this matter. Sometimes I summarize the problem this way: the Christian Right believes they are SO RIGHT that they end up totally WRONG, and the Christian Liberal Left has gone so far to the “left” that there is nothing LEFT in their theology or belief system. Both positions are not Biblical. The Bible actually defends us against both the “left” and the “right.” To assist the reader with further inquiry the sources used herein are listed on the last page. Sources will be referenced in this paper by listing the author’s last name and citing the page of the source where the ideas and information are confirmed by that author. For example, (see Boswell page 1).
WHAT THE BIBLE DOES CONDEMN THAT IS MISREPRESENTED AS HOMOSEXUALITY:
The Bible clearly mentions SAME – SEX ACTS and unconditionally condemns them when they are in the context of ritual cult prostitution, idolatry, engaged in by married heterosexual men, AND general ‘free sex’ usually referred to as “fornication” by most denominational dogmatic systems.
SPECIFIC PASSAGES SUPPOSED TO CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALITY:
THE STORY OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH Genesis 19:1-26
Statement:
“Surely the word “SODOMY” comes from this story.”
Response:
Actually, the name Sodom was not attached to Homosexual relations until the Middle Ages. The closest word for “homosexual” in Latin or any vernacular was “SODOMITA”. (see Boswell, page 93)
The etymology (origin and development) of the word “SODOMY” has rendered it to mean many things throughout history including ordinary heterosexual intercourse in an atypical position, even oral sexual contact with animals, exclusively male homosexuality, and even almost exclusively heterosexual excess. (see Boswell, page 93)
Even in some States “Sodomy” can mean sexual contact between married Heterosexual persons.
Statement: “Surely the sin of Sodom was that the men of Sodom tried to rape the Angels of God.”
Response:
There is absolutely no indication that the men even entertained the thought of doing such an act. Would this mean that all the men of Sodom were Homosexual? That is absurd in and of itself. This wrong interpretation is based on the phrase : “Bring them [Lot’s visitor’s – angels in some traditions, men in others] unto us, that we may KNOW them.” (Genesis 19:5) To “KNOW them” is supposed to mean “to have them sexually, to rape them”.
Statement: Of course it meant sexually!!
After all, in Genesis 4:1 Adam KNEW Eve….
Response: True enough with Adam and Eve; however, the same word is in verse 3:7 “They knew they were naked.”. Surely this same word did not mean sexually… To clarify the issue we have to be LITERAL here and look at the Hebrew (original as we have it) word and see what word was used in Genesis 19:5. The Hebrew word is yadha. In the Strong’s Concordance numbering system it is word #3045.
According to Biblical word scholars F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs, the word yadha appears in the Hebrew Bible 943 times. D.S. Bailey (1955) argues it is used only 10 times, excluding Gen 19 and its derivative Judges chapter 19, to denote any sense of sexual intercourse (sexual coitus). (See Bailey, page 2)
The 931 times the word yadha , to know, appears in the Hebrew Bible, it means simply to be acquainted with, or be informed about just as plainly as it does in English. McNeill asserts the very few times it might be used used to denote sexual coitus, it is always heterosexual intercourse . McNeill explains the word normally used in the Old Testament for both homosexual and heterosexual coitus and bestiality is shakhabh (word #7902).
(See McNeill, page 42 & Boswell, page 94F)
Statement:
If this is true why did the men of Sodom demand to be informed of who was in Lot’s house? And, why were they blinded by the visitors??
Response:
The men of the City demanded to know who was in the house because Lot was violating the city rules. He was not a citizen by birth right. He was only a ‘sojourner’ and therefore had only limited rights.
Genesis 19:9
And they said, “Stand back!” Then they said, “This one came in to sojourn, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them.” So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door.
Because Lot was himself an alien to the city he had the obligation to inform the others when strangers were staying with him. He did not do this. The men were enraged when Lot refused to hand over the persons he was housing without their permission. Lot was a good and holy man. He was Abraham’s nephew. Lot was far more concerned with ancient Laws of Hospitality to Strangers (and travelers) than he was about the laws of the City of Sodom.
Exodus 22:21
“You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Exodus23:9
“Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Leviticus 19:33 ‘
And if a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him.
Leviticus 19:34
‘But the stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Lot was more willing to hand over his own virgin daughters to the men than to have the Laws of Hospitality violated with his guests. Choosing the “visitors” over his own daughters seems horrific to us today but it indicates how seriously these Laws of Hospitality to the Stranger were to be observed.
Biblical scholars have embraced this interpretation (that the city was destroyed for disregarding the sacred laws of hospitality to the stranger, and in this case visitors sent from God) since around 1955. Scholars also recommend that sexual overtones in the story are faint, if suggested at all. In the original interpretive traditions the moral of the story was about hospitality to the stranger and failure to respond to the offer of Salvation made by the visitors. (See Boswell, page 93)
Personally, I also believe Lot knew how serious the rejection of the offer of Salvation was. Lot clearly heard the messengers announce that everyone who wanted to be saved from the destruction of the city needed to leave, that is, be “saved.” Lot believed them and realized they were not only “strangers” according to the laws but he knew they were God’s personal messengers of Salvation. For Lot, the protection of God’s messengers was even more important than his own daughters, for surely they would have been “saved” if they had died for the message of God. However, do notice they are NOT harmed and are clearly mentioned in the story as escaping the city in the morning.
Statement:
JESUS talked about the destructions of Sodom and Gomorrah……
Response:
YES He did and we are so thankful He mentioned it the way He did. Jesus made reference to the sin of Sodom as inhospitable treatment of visitors sent from the Lord.!!!!
Jesus refers to Sodom and Gomorrah only in the context of sending his own disciples out to preach the Gospel.
Matthew 10:11-14:
Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out. and when you go into a household, greet it. If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whoever will not receive yo nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and gomorrah in that day of judgement than for that city!
Luke 10:8-12:
Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you. And heal the sick there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ But whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, ‘the very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near you. But I say to you that it will be more tolerable in that Day for Sodom than for that city.
Jesus tells them to go into a town. They are, therefore, sojourners, travellers, strangers bearing the message of God’s SALVATION for the people. This is exactly what the ‘visitors’ of Genesis 19 were. Only now, in the Church Age, Jesus’ disciples are delivering the Gospel, a far more important message (by implication only, for salvation is by Grace in every dispensation) than the salvation message the Old Testament Good News bearers were bringing to the cities of the Plains. Jesus tells His disciples, the Ambassadors of the New Covenant:
“Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement, than for that city.”
(Matt. 10:14-15, CF Luke 10:10-12)
In other words, Jesus says the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed and burned because they would not receive the Word of God in the Old Testament; but any City that will mistreat you (my disciples) or refuse to hear the Word of God in the New Gospel of Jesus Christ shall bear a heavier punishment.
So how is any of the above dysphoric?
You will recall some hours ago when you began reading this diatribe that I went to considerable length to define dysphoria as an emotional state characterized by anxiety, abnormal depression, unease, discontent, sad feelings of gloom and inadequacy, indeed, a longing for something better than the present situation.
Now that we have that set of sociopathic semantics firmly in place you won’t be surprised to find that people who identify as transgendered suffer, according to the American Psychological Association, from GID (Gender Identity Disorder), Harry Benjamin Syndrome (after the foremost researcher in this field) or, yes, you guessed, Gender Dysphoria.
Interesting ~ in that my personal experience would suggest that most M2F transsexuals (whakawahine in my country) are quite the opposite. They are happy to be what they are, they are no more discontented than the average Josephine and, apart from a tendency to clinical depression relating to the oestrogen and testosterone blockers they take experience no more doom and gloom or anxiety than anyone else owning a petrol engine in 2008 might enjoy from their daily life.
On the other hand, Bible literalists are forever anxious, anxious and fearful in ways that only those deeply uncertain about their certainty might feel, longing always for the next world which will be infinitely better than this one and ultimately inadequate, even in their smug assurances that they alone know ‘the truth’.
Which is where we came in – if I remember correctly.
And why this Biblical dysphoria, this anxiety, this dissatisfaction?
My instinct is it has something to do with a thing called ‘faith’.
And an ultimate distrust in the certainty that they live and which they so often call ‘faith’.
But that’s never going to work, is it?
Why?
Because the whole point of faith is that it isn’t certain, it isn’t proven, it is … well, it’s faith, isn’t it?
Simple faith.
dykiegirl 