If Mary and Joseph had brought Jesus up on non-binary lines . . . .
Eirenist
Shipmate
in Epiphanies
. . . . what might have been the consequences? (Yes, I realise they would all have been stoned to death, but set that aside.)
For the benefit of non-UK shipmates, there is a news story here of a couple who are refusing to describe their new-born child as male or female and leaving 'them' to decide for themself which gender they should be assigned. I'm not sure if this thread belongs here or in Purgatory; Host, please decide when we see how the discussion progresses, if at all.
For the benefit of non-UK shipmates, there is a news story here of a couple who are refusing to describe their new-born child as male or female and leaving 'them' to decide for themself which gender they should be assigned. I'm not sure if this thread belongs here or in Purgatory; Host, please decide when we see how the discussion progresses, if at all.
Comments
I can't see anything in the Bible to suggest that Jesus' core identity was bound up in his biological sex, and at least one possible reference in the Bible to his resurrected body having female secondary sexual characteristics.
These days, I think he thought of himself as a person though, rather than a man . So yes - I think today he'd be some sort of non-binary. And he'd be "out" about it too!
During The Missing Years - when he was at Eton and after that travelled to The Far East - I am sure he indulged in the usual speculation and experimentation. But there was no High School Year Book (a la Brett Kavanaugh) or Facebook, Twitter, etc then - so we are unlikely to find anything in The Church Times of 32CE
Can you point to that possible reference, please? Enquiring minds need to know where it is...most intriguing!
When Jesus debates the Sadducees about the bodily resurrection He says that when the dead rise they will not marry but be 'like angels in heaven' (Mark 12: 25).
Thanks!
It’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that “mastos” is referring to women’s breasts. Liddell & Scott note that it’s used with both genders. Although it is unusual wording as the Greeks usually used a word for “chest” that’s currently eluding me.
Jesus's having been born male precludes that argument against the traditional theological understanding.
Fairly traditional societies can sometimes cope surprisingly well with the unusual, example. I suspect people would have thought the parents odd but possibly not much else would have happened until marriage was being considered.
What would non-binary mean in first century Judea outside marriage / for a child ? You wear a robe and nothing else whilst young, you help round the house doing whatever your parents tell you.
'So God created humans in His own image,
In the image of God He created them;
Male and female He created them.'
Gen 1: 27 has got a lot of interesting theology in it.
In 1: 26 the image of God is linked to authority to rule the, earth as God's representatives.
The image of God also expresses the capacities which set humans apart from animals: reason, morality, language and freewill.
The pattern of male and female expresses God's image in relationships.
The Hebrew term 'adam' translated as man is often a generic term that denotes both male and female.
Jesus bases His teaching on marriage and divorce upon the image of God in Gen 1: 27 and 2: 24 and the kinship of marriage resulting from the union of husband and wife: 'They are no longer two, but one flesh' (Mark 10: 2-12; Matt 19:3-12). The human marriage covenant expresses the image of God by creating a unified community like the plural community of the Godhead.
The Bible also days the universe was created in 6 days.
Newsflash, it wasn’t.
There is a lot that the Bible says that does not make sense in any literal way.
I understand things like giving a child gender-neutral toys, and/or leaving them free to play with toys that are usually thought of as for the other binary gender.
I get honoring a child's own sense of being other than binary.
But {thinking through this aloud} ISTM that the parents are still pushing their kid into a particular way of being, living, thinking of themselves...relating to the world. And they're setting the kid up for unnecessary awkwardness, which will affect interactions with other people.
Why not identify the kid as their binary physical gender (if they have one)? Let them play as they wish. Then if the kid expresses an awareness of, say, being trans, honor that and work with that.
Now 32, he has built and runs a company doing very sophisticated computer-y thingies, is "happily married" with a new baby but probably emotionally scarred for life. (Aren't we all but he is moreso).
That the decision was wrong or that society is wrong?
I learned that I am glad I did not do it for our children (who were the same age) and I am sorry I encouraged my friends because it caused such suffering to their child
I hope things have changed significantly since then
Well, I doubt the folks in the Shire would approve of raising a child that way. (Though Bilbo's family was rumored to have some fairy ancestry, and those magical folk might have a different view.) And having a hippie sort of name doesn't necessarily mean a person is a bad parent.
Yeah, that scenario is what I'm worried about.
I'm sure that what you say is true, but I suspect there may also be more non-binary people out there than people realize. There's a tendency out there to assume all non-binary people adopt obviously androgynous or gender-ambiguous gender presentations, to the point where a lot of people seem to conflate nonbinary gender identity and obviously gender-ambiguous gender expression. I can't speak to numbers, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only non-binary person out there who doesn't match this description. Also, I do have distinct childhood memories of the kind of thing you're describing - though more along the lines of gravitating towards girls as schoolyard friends at recess than of being attracted to "girl activities" per se.
I haven't read the UK news reports people are referencing. For obvious reasons, I'm totally in favour of parenting styles that allow children maximum flexibility for children to figure out who they are, but my gut says that totally trying to hide any notion of gender from a child such that they are encouraged not even to think of themselves of male or female would require heroic efforts bordering on child abuse. Kids shouldn't be guinea pigs for progressive parents' experiments in gender politics, any more than they should become victims of conservative parents' ideological investment in traditional gender roles.
That article lays it out very well, including the story opening and closing. tl;dr: A group of parents decide telepathy is the wave of the future, and plan to raise their kids to communicate through telepathy--*only*. Stuff Happens; and one kid is left on her own, unable to communicate with normal people. There is, ultimately, a good resolution. But getting there is brutal.
As an aside, I should probably have mentioned that non-binary gender identity as I understand it arises largely independently of upbringing. So whatever weird things parents do, they're not going to make their kids non-binary (any more than they could make them bisexual), though they may make them very confused. The OP seems a bit confused on this point.
Not sure where I fall on trying to completely avoid gender whilst raising children. Societal expectations are the real problem, but the expectations exist and children are vulnerable.