It is more than a Bathroom issue.

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.