[AGTRT-BF44] From TERF to TEFC: fundamentalist Christians must also be critically questioned about their definition of bodily gender

Jan Bergstra & Laurens Buijs
Amsterdam Gender Theory Research Team

In addition to the anti-trans feminists (TERFs), another group has gone on a crusade against transgender people: anti-trans Christians. We call these TEFCs: Trans-Exclusionary Fundamentalist Christians (see AGTRT-BF36). At first glance, Christians and feminists do not have much in common. But anyone who looks closely will see that both groups struggle with their definition of bodily gender.

Read more about how transgender people are thought of within TEFC and TERF ideology:
Essentialist thinking about gender is especially evident among feminists and Christians

In TEFC circles, it is common to speak of gender ideology, usually without any prior study of the content and goals of gender theory. Then it is fair and symmetrical to speak of TEFC ideology as well.

The TEFC position states that people are exclusively male or female in terms of gender. Gender would be immutably fixed from birth, and could always be indisputably established at birth. But what remains of this position if we take a closer look at the exact definition of bodily gender (see AGTRT-BF41 and AGTRT-BF42)?

In blog AGTRT-BF43, we discussed how the concept of bodily gender can help expose inconsistencies of TERF ideology. At first it seems as if the TEFC ideology cannot be questioned in the same way as the TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) ideology. Indeed, TEFC and TERF differ significantly from each other:

• TEFC ideology sees no problem with feminist ideals or rights gained through feminist struggle being threatened.
• TEFC ideology does not deal with the (even in our eyes sometimes obvious) forms of abuse of gender transition. That very abuse is a focus of TERF ideology.
• TEFC ideology relies on the interpretation of specific Bible fragments. TERF ideology does not base itself on the Bible.
• TEFC ideology sees it as a person’s task to develop into a “good” human being within the boundary condition of the physical gender assigned to the person shortly after birth. TERF ideology sees suppressing a desire for gender transition not as a personal task with a moral dimension, but as recognizing the implausibility of gender transition.
• TEFC ideology has a very large following: perhaps 1.5 to 2.5 billion adherents worldwide.
• TEFC ideology is often accompanied by an anti-abortion stance, and opposition to marriage between persons of the same physical gender. None of these views have adherents among supporters of TERF ideology.

But as with TERF ideology, inconsistencies of thought do emerge when TEFC adherents are asked what notion of bodily gender one adopts. We repeat the list of options for concretization of physical gender from blog AGTRT-BF42:

1. Morphologically determined binary sex at birth,
2. Morphologically determined sex at birth (neutral morphological sex also conceivable),
3. Morphologically determined sex at birth (in case of ambiguity, the physician can therefore choose a conception of biological gender and thus decide the case),
4. Morphologically determined sex (possibly modified during life and postoperatively),
5. Biological sex according to the characteristics of chromosomes,
6. Biological sex according to the structure/properties of gonads and gametes.

We now imagine a supporter A of the TEFC ideology. Depending on the definition of physical gender (1 to 6) this person chooses, the following critical questions can be asked about it:

1. The question to A arises whether this interpretation is not obsolete based on modern science. Are there reasons (biblical, for example) to hold to an outdated interpretation of bodily gender?
2. The question arises whether mistakes were made in assigning gender in the past when neutral gender was not recognized.
3. Again, the question arises as to whether the determination of the past was sometimes in error.
4. This option directly contradicts the TEFC ideology.
5. Then it is certain that in earlier times gender attribution has sometimes taken place that is incorrect by today’s standards.
6. As in 5.

In Option 1, the issue is quite fundamental and it is to be expected that there will be differing opinions within TEFC ideology circles. There are groups (for example, the Roman Catholic Church) where one prefers to accept the results of modern science and daparmee accepts that morphologically determined binary sex at birth will, at least in the long run, be an obsolete interpretation. But there is also TEFC ideology in which the eloquence of biblical fragments is considered stronger than the results of modern science, so that there is no reason to abandon morphologically determined binary sex at birth as a criterion for physical gender.

Read more about gender within the Roman Catholic Church:
The Roman Catholic Church has more diversity of views on gender than one might think

Let us assume that TEFC ideology adherent A interprets physical gender as option 5, that is, physical gender is determined according to the characteristics of chromosomes. With that, in the current state of medical science, physical gender is already established at birth.

The question one can now ask A from formal gender theory (see AGTRT-BF8) is this. Can it now be said that in earlier times gender assignment with certainty sometimes went wrong (by today’s standards)? If not, how can that be explained? If so: how is it that a person (say B, born in 1850, died in 1920) to whom an incorrect gender was assigned could be expected to regard that assigned gender as a gift from God and on that basis to live a happy and good life?

The last question is relevant because gender assignment based on physical gender can be seen as a social process. That process depends on determining physical gender shortly after birth. That process is revised when one’s interpretation of physical gender changes.

So does A see it that when B is assigned an incorrect gender through the social process of gender assignment, B should and can indeed stick to it and become happy with it? If not, then the premise that one should be and remain happy with the physical gender assigned at birth is untenable. If so, then surely the strident critique from within TEFC ideology of “gender as a social construct” is untruthful.