Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Pagan
Affirming One Is Not Erasure of Another

Affirming One Is Not Erasure of Another

Last updated on: July 1, 2016 at 4:10 pm by Tom Swiss

Affirming One Is Not Erasure of Another 2016-07-01T16:10:05-04:00 Tom Swiss

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

It’s been a busy month for me, with two road trips (the 40th anniversary of my karate school and the Free Spirit Gathering), plus some stressful changes at the day job — which have in turn prompted me to get some other projects moving. So I’m a little behind on the most recent blogosphere brouhaha.

Apparently next door at “Alone In Her Presence”, Erick DuPree published an interview with Ruth Barrett, regarded by some as a “trans-exclusive radical feminist”, or “TERF”. Erick has since removed the interview, so I can’t comment on it (and this is why I object to controversial posts being removed, creating memory holes in the public discourse), but Barrett is apparently of the opinion that trans acceptance means “erasing” the female.

At Common Tansy, Pat Mosley has responded with a series of interviews of transgender Pagans. Pat asked one such Pagan, named Jean-Marie, “Do Pagans who believe that affirming the gender of trans people = female erasure accurately represent Paganism?” Jean-Marie replied, “The silence of other Patheos bloggers on speaks loudly to this accuracy.”

I don’t want to be part of that silence.

noterasure2 There is a fundamental confusion at work in many people’s notions about their identity: that allowing other people the right to explore their selves, including areas that may overlap with your self-notion, somehow degrades your own right to explore and define yourself. And so others must be excluded from certain self-identifications or actions. “You can’t be a Real Such-and-Such, because I’m a Real Such-and-Such and am or have or do so-and-so and you don’t! Only those who are so-and-so are allowed to be Real Such-and-Suches, it’s a key part of our identity and culture and those who don’t have it or do it or aren’t it aren’t allowed in!”

Examples: “You’re not a Real American because you’re not Protestant Christian!” “You’re not a Real Man because you don’t eat meat!” “You’re not a Real Intellectual because you don’t prefer the music of Bach to that of Jimi Hendrix!”

And conversely, “You can’t do or be or have so-and-so, because I’m a Real Such-and-Such and you’re not! Only Real Such-and-Suches are allowed to so-and-so, it’s a key part of our identity and culture and we have to prevent others from doing it or being it or having it!”

We went over that one during the “cultural appropriation” kerfluffle a few months back.

And so we have, “You can’t be a Real Woman, because I’m a Real Woman and I’ve experienced menses and that’s what makes me a Real Woman! Only those who’ve experienced their moon are Real Women!”

And, “You can’t be a priestess in this rite! Only Real Women are allowed to take that role, it’s a key part of our religious identity!”

As if allowing someone who had never menstruated (which, by the way, includes some persons born with XX chromosomes and female sex organs and labeled female at birth and self-identified as female throughout their life but who experienced various medical conditions) to claim the label “female” would change your own experience of your body, or allowing someone else to play a role in ritual would change the experience you had when you took that role.

It speaks of a troubling weakness in one’s own sense of self that one must exclude others from certain labels, roles, and behaviors.

Now, affirming a person’s right to be how they are, to explore their existence, doesn’t mean agreeing with them. I don’t concur at all with Jean-Marie’s statement “I hope society abandons the idea [of gender] all together.” While there are many problems with our society’s gender roles and norms, the existence of some social construct of gender seems a natural and inevitable response to the biological reality that most (not all!) humans fall pretty clearly into one of two biological sexes.

Nor is this meant to gloss over some of the complex issues about trans acceptance. I don’t give a darn about the genitalia of the person in the bathroom stall next to me — so long as anyone using a urinal is able to aim, using natural or artificial means, let’s all leave each other alone to answer the fundamental calls of biology. That ginned-up controversy seems a genuine attempt to erase trans people from public existence.

On the other hand, the presence of transgender people in shared showers and changing areas raises fundamental questions about the whole notion of gender segregation, which at the very least need to be acknowledged to be deep and complicated. (Though for the record, I personally don’t care who I see or who sees me unclothed.) So I don’t want to be overly breezey

But the idea that accepting one group’s existence means erasing another group is entirely wrong-headed and must be vigorously rejected.

You can keep up with “The Zen Pagan” by subscribing via RSS or e-mail.

I’ll be presenting at the Starwood Festival later this month.

If you do Facebook, you might choose to join a group on “Zen Paganism” I’ve set up there. And don’t forget to “like” Patheos Pagan and/or The Zen Pagan over there, too.

Also, Why Buddha Touched the Earth makes great summer reading!

Previous Post

June 30, 2016

Stopping Violence With Absurdity

Next Post

July 4, 2016 Against the Hagiography of Elie Wiesel

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2017 52 Makeup 2020 52 Makeup Always Roaming With A Hungry Heart Art Because I Could Not Stop For Death Caught On Video COVID-19 Culture Discordianism Ethics, Virtue, and Right Living History Magic(k), Ritual, and Mysticism My Blogging Life and Times Philosophy Podcast Poetry Random Wednesdays Religion & Politics Seasonal Musings Techno-Pagan Theology Uncategorized Warrior Path Zen

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 March 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 September 2024 August 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 October 2022 September 2022 June 2022 April 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Paul Peter James Jesus