The Religious Controversy, The Abuse Of The Word Of God In Order To Mask Own Fears

One of the conclusions reached in my first article was that:

Much of the religious objections voiced against trans-sexuality in fact constitute an abuse of God's name in order to mask fears. These fears are the same I just spoke of and are equally applicable to the orthodox/fundamentalist. The only difference is that it the case of the religious objector she/he attempts to use religion as a weapon.

Those fears seem to derive from an unresolved male/female duality in each individual, which more often than not are the causes deep insecurities within the individual in relation to the manifestation of the opposite gender.

Transsexual individuals invoke unease and disease in others. That which we cannot understand we condemn and destroy. Transsexualism challenges the fundamental doctrines upon which our society was constructed.

In the course of this second article I will make a serious attempt to show the validity of my earlier assertion and proof that the foundation on which the Orthodox/Fundamentalist builds his/her argumentation is a very feeble one indeed.

According to a review of recent Orthodox considerations of sex-change surgery by Yeshiva University Talmud professor J. David Bleich, in his Contemporary Halakhic Problems (Yeshiva University Press, 1977), the operation itself is forbidden – for women because sterilization is prohibited, and for males because it involves castration, which is prohibited.

Of course the first question to be answered is whether the use of male/female refers to gender or to physical properties. Commonly the religious fundamentalist will answer that the later is the determining factor, which however implies that the flesh is placed above the Soul something which in my opinion, constitutes blasphemy. In my first article, I argued the case extensively; nevertheless, in the course of this article I will address it somewhat more detail.

Interesting in this context is the view of Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg, a judge in the Supreme Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem, who maintains that surgical reversal, does effect a change. Granted Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg represents a minority view, but as it is so often the case when an establishment is confronted with something which it is unfamiliar with and which seems to violate the natural order of things, it will be only a few really great scholars who will lead the way to new insights or who have the inner strength to approach uncomfortable questions value-free. This is equally valid for the theological a for scientific establishment, one only needs to look at the resistance encountered by those theoretical physicists who are exploring the full implications of quantum theory, at the end of the day it only will be the truly great thinkers, such as Bohm and my friend and mentor Jack Sarfatti, who have the courage to risk their reputation in the pursuit of truth.

The Gemara (Shabbat 110b) derives the prohibition against castration (of humans and animals) from the verse, "And that which is mauled or crushed or torn or cut you shall not offer unto the Lord; nor should you do this in your land" (Vayikra/Leviticus 22:24).

It seems to me that the derivation in itself is somewhat forced to say the least. If the translation is not totally inaccurate than a simple semantical, analysis should suffice to invalidate it as an argument against sex changes or in fact any surgical treatment. That what is "mauled or crushed or torn" clearly refers to that what has been removed, cut of or crushed, which by no means can be the same as the body from which it has been removed. When applied to sex-altering surgery the implication would be that what was removed can not be offered unto the Lord. Hence if anything became unholy as an effect of such an operation it is not the body of the person who underwent surgery but solely the parts removed. I invite anybody to proof me wrong in this.

If in fact somebody feels that she/he can provide sound argumentation countering my assertion, I would like to ask this person to consider the following:

John Doe, who happens to be a construction worker, gets his right foot crushed by a slab of concrete. He is taken to the hospital and the doctors have to remove his crushed foot.

Now according to the interpretation of Vayikra/Leviticus 22:24, by those who apply it in order to prohibit sex changes, John Doe now is unholy and can be called an abomination. I sincerely hope you don't, however be warned that not condemning John Doe for having his right foot removed implies that you neither can condemn a transsexual for undergoing an operation aimed at a sex-change.

It could be argued that in the case of John Doe he probably would not survive if his right foot would not be removed. This however equally applies to the transsexual who due to her/his condition probably would not survive in the end. In the words of Bracha "I look at it like this: It's forbidden to use the telephone on Shabbat, but if you life is in danger, you are obligated to use it. I was desperate. I had considered killing myself many times. I'd be dead right now if I hadn't transitioned." For those who may think that this is an over-dramatization I would like to refer to Jennifer Diane Reitz in order to get a clear understanding of the subject.

Following from the above argumentation an individual who underwent surgical treatment aimed at a sex change cannot be condemned on religious grounds as:

1) Vayikra/Leviticus 22:24 solely pertains to a prohibition against offering the parts removed unto the
    Lord. As for the same token, this applies to any other surgical treatment involving the removal of
    body parts.

2) Not transitioning probably results in the death of the individual involved.

Another argument put forward by those who seek to condemn transition and even hormone treatment is derived from Dvarim/Deuteronomy 22:5 "A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment."

In a sense this argument is potentially far more lethal, where it not that it bypasses the question of he determination of gender. Of course in a direct sense, also Dvarim/Deuteronomy can be overridden by the existence of a condition, which potentially might cause the death of the individual involved. The first question I would want to address pertains to its applicability for prohibition of hormone treatment. As it was the case for Vayikra/Leviticus 22:24 the attempt is made to apply rules/commandments to questions outside of the context in which the rules/commandments were formulated. The commandment speaks of "wearing" and garments (clothes, attire, clothing, costume, dress, garb, suit, etc,), hence that what one can wear to cover the body with. Nowhere is spoken of substances administered to an individual in the context of a medical treatment. Hence hormone treatment as such is not forbidden by consequence of Dvarim/Deuteronomy 22:5.

The remaining question than pertains to the effects of such treatment to the body of the individual to which it is applied. The effects of such treatment however apply to alterations in shape and functional aspects of the body as such. From the perspective of semantics however Dvarim/Deuteronomy 22:5 solely applies to that which is used to cover the body and not to it's shape. The conclusion therefor has to be that:

Dvarim/Deuteronomy 22:5 cannot be applied in order to prohibit hormone treatment.

Before continuing, we will have to revisit the question of what determines the gender of an individual. In the eyes of Halacha, the external organs are generally considered the decisive factor and that gender is irreversibly determined at birth. I will argue that although gender is indeed irreversibly determined at birth, or actually, at a particular point before birth when the Soul attaches to the body, the Soul is the determining factor rather than the external organs of the body.

Jennifer Diane Reitz writes:

Gender and Sex are very separate things, though the terms are often considered interchangeable by the less aware. Sex is physical form and function while Gender is a component of identity. There can be considered to be some legitimate overlap in that the brain is structured in many sex-differentiated ways, and the brain is the seat of identity. However, with regard to the dilemma of the transsexual, the difference between sex and gender are at the very core of the issue.

For the purpose of a religious discussion, I will argue that Gender is a component of the essential beingness of the individual while equating essential beingness with the Soul. Hence, while remaining in perfect agreement with Jennifer, it can be said that Sex is physical form and function pertaining to the physical body while Gender is a component of the Soul. There is indeed a degree of overlap from Soul into brain structure, which follows from the fact that no strict separation can exist between the non-material Soul and the physical body, something the scriptures confirm by postulating the Soul as immortal and in temporary union with the physical body. Whereas from a secular perspective if can be said that the brain is the seat of beingness, hence the Soul, from a religious perspective the Soul is to be considered exterior to the physical body with the brain as an interface.

If from a Halakhic perspective it is argued that gender is determined by the bodies external organs the argumentation is based on the confusion of sex with gender which in turn implies a profound confusion as to what is of the body and what is of the Soul. In my first article I wrote:

The first question, to consider, relates to the nature of that what constitutes essential beingness. Approaching it from the perspective of religion in a general sense I would equate essential beingness to that what is generally referred to as the Soul. This in turn can be approximated by defining it as the immortal essence governing the mortal physical vehicle by which it manifests itself in the three-dimensional material world. If indeed there is an immortal Soul, it seems a fair assertion that it is of a higher order than the mortal body, which merely would be a vehicle, designed to operate on a lower level of implementation.

Given that in virtual all situations the fundamentalist will justly place higher value on the Soul than on the flesh it seems an oxymoron to claim the opposite when speaking about gender and sex related subjects. As I extensively argued in my first article the reason hereof is not so much to be found in the scriptures but rather in a desire to condemn that what is unfamiliar/uncomfortable. The true foundation for such a desire is the fact that most people are highly insecure with their dual nature. The man-in the-woman and the woman-in-the-man. This duality which in most cases remains unresolved is the source for deep and irrational fears and insecurities which lead to aggression towards those who do not directly fit in the frame of reference. Transsexuality in a very direct sense reminds people of this duality and gives rise to the fear that potentially, by association, the opposite gender could at some point take the upper hand and/or lead to a reduction of the primary gender.

It is not up to the transsexual to deal with this problem but rather a weakness, which the individual who feels this fear will have to deal with. In my first article, speaking from the perspective of a man, I said "get to the know the woman in yourself and make peace with her, only than you really know who you are and there will be no need for fears, aggression and senseless attacks on people who exercise their right to be in accordance to who they really are. Needless to say, that this equally applies to women as to man.

This article and section of the homepage is dedicated to transsexuality,important is to stress that the same basic mechanisms apply to aggression and condemnation directed against the Homosexual community. The right to be in accordance with oneself is a basic human right and in a society which considers itself enlightened irrational fears and aggression should have no place. Unfortunately, all to often people are being denied their right to be respected for being in accordance with their inner self. This not because of any fault of their own but solely because a large part of humanity is not yet advanced enough to understand their own being. This is something Dana herself stands for, something I admire her for and makes her into an example for others to follow.

The last part of this article deals with Bleich's position, which seems to be that gender is irreversibly determined at birth and that since the substitute organs are not capable of reproduction, there has been no true change. As it has been shown and argued before that Bleich confuses Gender with Sex I will not further deal with this issue, rather I will argue that the question of change pertains to the degree in which a physical problem has or has not been alleviated by a surgical procedure. Unfortunately medical science, at this point in time, is not yet sufficiently advanced to create substitute organs capable of reproduction, however I'm sure that in time this will become possible, like it will become possible to alleviate the problem of infertility in man and women born with attributes consistent to their Gender.

Bleich's question pertaining to what has changed after the surgical procedure can only be answered as follows; the Gender of the person who underwent surgery did not change at all as in the male-to-female transition the persons Gender was female to begin with while in the female-to-male transition it was male. The change pertains to the Sex of the person, which in the pre-op condition was inconsistent with his/her Gender. Following from this surgery solely pertains to the correction of a physical condition of which the results are constrained by the degree of medical expertise available at any one point in time. In this sense, there is no fundamental difference between a procedure aimed at correcting a discrepancy between Gender and Sex and any other corrective surgery. All it means is that a woman handicapped by birth, in that she was equipped with male external attributes underwent corrective surgery in order to increase her quality of life. The hope is that somewhere in the future medical science will be able to go all the way, but this in itself does not alter the fact that this woman always has been a woman something which turns Bleich's argumentation into a moot point.

The conclusion, following that what was presented in this article, will have to be that nobody should have him/her self deterred from transition on religious grounds nor is their any religious justification for the aggression and slander transsexuals often have to face. There is nothing repeat nothing a transsexual should feel guilty about in regards to religion or in her/his relation with The Lord, on the other hand those who abuse the Word Of God in order to mask their own weaknesses and fears and cast stones at His/Her children would be well advised to consider the guilt they load upon themselves. May this be guilt to be repaid in accordance to the scriptures or guilt towards humanity.

Lets' finally grow up and realize that we are all brothers and sisters, all in our own way, and that Love is the guiding principle in doing Gods work here on Earth. The greatest evil one can commit is to spread hate and misunderstanding into this World, regardless of whether it is done out of ignorance and fear or out of malicious intend, it is this which is the work of Satan.

It may well be that for some of the older generation it is to late, so it is up to us to reach understanding and make a change. I titled my homepage "Dana thank you for being" and I think justly so as her openness and courage in the face of the often horrendous attacks made on her, may well open peoples eyes for what really is and by that allow so many to receive the respect they deserve. Let us never forget that Love and mutual respect is the road to peace and happiness for all.

I am sorry Dana but I will end this article with a quote from a song by The Plastic Ono Band, I am sure you understand.

All We Are Saying Is Give Peace A Chance.