With the news this week of President Trump revoking the
Executive Order signed by President Obama about transgender people and their
use of bathrooms and locker rooms in schools, there have been vicious attacks
lobbed from both sides in this cultural war. Those for the order are saying
that if you are not for it you are against transgender people and you are fine
with them being bullied. Those against it are saying that the other side is
fine with predators going into bathrooms and locker rooms to prey on the vulnerable.
It seems like name calling has replaced arguments these days, particularly on
Social Media. I am saddened by this disintegration of the conversation to sound
bites without addressing the logical basis hidden on both sides.
So what is the basis for each side’s argument? On the side
supporting President Trump’s actions, there is the idea that gender dysphoria
(the belief or feeling that your biological gender and the gender you identify
with are different, man trapped in a woman’s body or vice versa) is a mental
health issue. This is the main
historical stance including the American Psychiatric Association (APA) up until
2013. If gender dysphoria is a mental health issue, then the best way to help
them is to help them see reality in a more correct light. We do this with
depression and other mental health issues. If someone has depression, we do not
leave them to be trapped in their own thinking. We do not tell them that what
they are thinking is correct and affirm what their brain is telling reality. In
order to get their brain functioning correctly, counseling is needed and
sometimes medication is prescribed because of a chemical imbalance. Dr. Paul
McHugh is the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital and he
disagrees with the APA’s stance on gender dysphoria. He said:
“gender dysphoria ... belongs in the family of … anorexia
nervosa and body dysmorphic disorder. Its treatment should not be directed at
the body as with surgery and hormones any more than one treats obesity-fearing
anorexic patients with liposuction. The treatment should strive to correct the
false, problematic nature of the assumption and to resolve the psychosocial
conflicts provoking it.” (“Johns Hopkins
Psychiatrist: It Is Starkly, Nakedly False That Sex Change Is Possible”, http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/paul-mchugh/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-it-starkly-nakedly-false-sex-change-possible
by Paul McHugh published 6/17/2015)
In other words, the treatment is to fix their wrong thinking
rather than affirm it. Thus, the executive order is not addressing the issue
but hiding it and telling them they are fine. It is not the best way to help
these individuals.
On the other side of the issue are the people supporting the
work that President Obama did in enacting this order. They are following the changes
that the APA made in 2013, when the DSM-5 focused on if the person feels
distressed or not. The APA came out and
changed how they look at Gender Identity Disorder renaming it Gender Dysphoria.
With the name change, the focus was changes on how it should be treated. If the
person does not feel distressed with “their cross-gender identification” then
is it not a problem (thus it is not a “disorder”). For example, a person with
depression is almost by definition in distress as a result of their depression.
Thus, it is a problem. The APA now sees Gender Dysphoria as a different type of
issue from the other mental health issues. Not only that but they go on to interpret
much of the distress “arises as a result of a culture that stigmatizes people
who do not conform to gender norms.” In other words, it is not a disorder with
the person but it is a problem with society. Thus, the best way to help them is
to change society. (“Gender
Dysphoria: DSM-5 Reflects Shift In Perspective On Gender Identity”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/gender-dysphoria-dsm-5_n_3385287.html
article by Wynne Parry published 6/4/2013 on Huffington Post)
Now that we have presented the basis for most of the
arguments on both sides, there are a few items that should be pointed out.
1. You can hold to either side of this argument and care
deeply for the people with gender dysphoria. The viciousness needs to stop if we
are to remain a civil society. Regardless of which side one falls, care for the
person is paramount. From a Christian’s perspective, they are going through
this because of living in a fallen world but not because of any moral failure
they have done. (Mark Yarhouse, June 8, 2015 http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/july-august/understanding-transgender-gender-dysphoria.html)
2. There is not consensus on the cause or treatment of this
issue. Yes, the APA is has its followers but there are others that disagree. As
quoted, Paul McHugh and Mark Yarhouse are two of the many others that disagree
with the APA’s stance.
3. No matter the treatment, one needs to weigh the benefits
verses the costs. As an example, the costs of the bathroom directive do include
a loophole for people (predators) to use the “other” bathroom without society
having the ability to stop them. Is that a large risk? Some say yes and some
say no. Also, we need to figure out the benefits of it as well. Does this help
the people suffering? Again, it goes back to what you believe the problem truly
is.
Finally, as a Christian, our job is not to get the other
side to see our perspective but to point people to God. Too many of the
interactions I see that Christians have little to do with preserving our
witness but siding with one political perspective or the other. The truth of
the matter is that God does not make mistakes and he loves everyone. He loves
and cares for those on both sides and he loves and cares for those suffering
from gender dysphoria. No matter what, the Gospel meets everyone at the same
place: we are sinners in need of a Savior. When we finish our conversations
with others, do the people you are interacting with know this? The Gospel is
more important than your stance on gender dysphoria or the bathroom directive.
