The Theist and gender neutrality – Why God should be a role model.

If God is a person and is gender neutral – is not permissible for all persons to be gender neutral – including humans?

In his book ‘Coherence of Theism’ Richard Swinburne discusses God’s ‘personhood’. For Swinburne, ‘personhood’ is a mental substance – it is what gives us our perception, allows us to act with intentions and moreover, personhood is experienced only by us. That said, we can recognise its presence in others. There is an argument that it is your ‘personhood’ that means we shouldn’t treat you as means to end – you are an end in yourself. 

I hope that was the nicest thing you read about yourself today.

Put plainly, your personhood gives you a value beyond simply being of use to others. For example, a waiter in a restaurant is providing a service to you – that is his purpose…but only as a ‘waiter’. He is also a human with inalienable rights that guarantee his individuality and personhood. Animal rights activists claim personhood for animals when arguing for greater treatment of animals beyond ‘what they do (or is done to them) for us.’ However, for the benefit of my post – it should also be noted that for Abrahamic faiths too– God is a person – God possess the mental substance that I have just been discussing.

In contemporary thought – a distinction has been drawn between a person’s ‘sex’ and their ‘gender’. For the human being, as a mammal, the presence of a penis confers the biological and thereby physical ‘sex’ of male and where there is a vagina  – female. However, the gender prescription of how a male ‘acts’ and what a male actually is – is linked not to their anatomy, but to their own perceptions of self, through the application through their mental substance. Arguably, the penis is a physical substance entailed in the description ‘male’ but the concept of  ‘what is a man’ is far more complex than our physical bodies – it requires our mental capacity to ascertain – our personhood.

Therefore, I can be identified as male by a physical examination – but my gender, my sexuality, is a mental construction and…well…that’s jolly well up to me. For me I am both physically male and my gender is ‘man’ – and that was my choice. 

And this is a problem for many – but why should it be a problem for the theist?  After all their God is the original ‘gender-neutral person’.

For thousands of years, since prophets and chosen persons brought into our collective minds the revelation of a single divine being – it has been written that this entity is a man. ‘Father’ ‘He’ ‘Him’ ‘Lord’. And yet the clear paradox is that this cannot be verified either empirically (by observation) or through logical deduction. Yet read any of the Abrahamic religions scriptures and God’s ‘sex’ is only visible in a prescribed (by men) pronoun and to a greater yet still controversial extent  – visible through incarnation. However, God’s gender – is clearly…neutral. He cannot be male or female and to say that God is would cause you all sorts of messy contradictions that could probably end up in Them popping out of existence.  

I would also argue that our mental substance should have supervenience (a greater say) over our physical substance. I am aware that the theist may draw a line here as will the non-dualists among you – but where a person identifies as a gender, they have the right to align their other essential property – their body – with that gender choice. 

Conclusion…

If the theist accepts God’s personhood and gender neutrality, then why not gender neutrality or non-binary in persons who are human. It seems logical that where a person has a conscious mind and mental capacity of personhood that they choose their own gender. There is another argument from Free Will (God’s gift to humans that gets Her off the hook when it comes to evil in the world) wherein it is through our Free Will that we choose our gender. Our capacity to choose our gender is through the grace of God. Either way – gender is fluid and constructed and there should be no issue with such a position. 

Comments

3 responses to “The Theist and gender neutrality – Why God should be a role model.”

  1. Brendan Burns Avatar
    Brendan Burns

    Offff!! This is a meaty conversation cunningly discussed as a brief discussion. The idea of gender fluid is not necessarily an issue for me although the idea now seems to be this generation’s version of the Goths, the Punks, or the Mods. A subculture expressing rebellion towards conformity. The issue I have about it is that is opening the potential for vulnerable adults and, even more worryingly, vulnerable parents to move into the realm where gender fluidity impacts sexuality. This is not the same as getting the rebellious tattoo, sticking two fingers up to a society that doesn’t understand you. This is a massive undertaking and while, I completely support the idea, if it has been correctly counselled, I am not sure that all cases are.

    I completely agree with you that no one should judge anyone based upon their gender. This is a personal expression of who they are and they should be happy in their own skin. Who has the right to say what they are doing is correct, whereas what someone else is doing is wrong. Boys playing sports and girls doing home-ec, etc. These are outdated stereotypes which have been thankfully debunked and while there is a lot more work to do, the acceptance of all skills being possible for both sexes is coming along nicely.

    The same is not the case for gender fluidity. This is a battle at it’s embryonic beginning. It is going to take more than Rylan Clarke Neal presenting on Radio 2, for it to be socially accepted. Mind you, we are only just getting female pundits on Sky Sports so the egalitarian utopia is a long road ahead of us.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Brendan Burns Avatar
    Brendan Burns

    That’s meant to be DISGUISED not cunningly discussed

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Dillonwolfe Avatar
    Dillonwolfe

    Thank you Brendan – as always, good to hear your thoughts. So, I would say that whilst gender is fluid (which I believe it is) that doesn’t necessarily make it a good thing. You make a really good point about ‘counselling’ and I think it might be the case that persons, particularly young persons, who are in a state of fluidity about their gender may themselves not believe it is a good thing. Feelings of confusion and uncertainty, I would argue, are not pleasurable and enjoyable states of being. Vulnerable stages of human development (such as that other social construct…adolescence) have enough conflict to contend let alone the introduction of their gender identification. I would hope that the if the counsel sought be from a theist perspective that the theist acknowledges that they would be in a contrary position if they only introduced a biological perspective of gender to those vulnerable persons seeking their sagacity.

    We live in this post-enlightenment world where there is a challenge to the meta-truths such as: if we can’t measure something (such as how we define gender) utilising an objective tool – then it is of no value. However:

    “…not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted” (William Bruce Cameron…I think).

    But again, we fundamentally agree that when we practically apply ethical positions such as promoting healthy gender identification that persons good mental health is being supported.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment