The 31 New Gender Identities

Could It Get Any Sillier Than This?

I’m pretty sure you thought it could not get any sillier than the City of New York announcing there are 31 genders from which people can now describe themselves. That’s right, you can now use a minimum of 31 gender designations when making references to human beings. The city fathers assure us that any violation of such designations will not end in a fine or jail, yet. Facebook lists between 56 and 58 depending on when you asked them, while the Comprehensive List of LGBTQ community listed approximately 77 gender designations for those who find the male and female categories too constraining.

All of this is part of a greater policy called “gender mainstreaming.” This is defined as the public policy concept of assessing the different implications for women and men of any planned policy action, including legislation and programs, in all areas and levels. Mainstreaming essentially offers a pluralistic approach that values the diversity among both men and women. What is not included in this definition is the emphasis upon making certain that those in the LGBT community are seen as mainstream along with what would be considered gender normative. But the word normative seems to be offensive as well so the term cisgender has replaced it. Cisgender has its origin in the Latin-derived prefix cis-, meaning “on this side of,” which is an antonym for the Latin-derived prefix trans-, meaning “across from” or “on the other side of.” I guess the idea here is to find a term to describe something that no longer has any relationship to what you are trying to describe. Cisgender simply means you identify as the gender you were born with. Are we making any sense yet?

The Name Game

This reminded me of the game played by evolutionists with regard to the miracle of life. They coined the term abiogenesis to mean a beginning or genesis of life without divine intervention. But then, it had the term “genesis” in it, and that could not be separated from the first book of the Hebrew Bible that contained a detailed account of the creation of the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing). These hyper-materialists could not have a word that contained the name of the first book of the Bible, especially when they were using this word to describe the origin of life without a Creator. What was their solution, they substituted the word biopoesis for abiogenesis and the problem was solved, or so they thought.

Never mind that abiogenesis was just another word for spontaneous generation. Never mind that as early as 1668 Italian scientist Francesco Redi had laid the groundwork to refute the popular concept of spontaneous generation. As science often does, it would take another two centuries for another Bible believing scientist, Louis Pasteur, to finally prove that the evolutionary concept of spontaneous generation (that life can arise from non-living molecules) was indeed untrue. Pasteur would finally be able to prove what Redi had written almost 200 years before. These empirical results were summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for “all life [is] from life.” It was this truth that formed the basis for the Law of Biogenesis.

Scientifically, there are only 2 genders, male and female. This is a problem for those who desire to seek diversity where none really exists. Why is this problem? We have already seen white people who “self-identify” as black. We have seen a prominent politician self-identify as an American Indian on the basis of her family history of high cheekbones. We have seen the traditional family redefined. We have seen parents who ask their children, “do they want to dress as a boy or a girl today?”

Let me make it very clear that the Creation Studies Institute does not believe that gender should be a matter of personal choice. That does not mean that real people, regardless of gender, can have legitimate feelings of confusion concerning their sexuality. But what should the response of Bible believing people be when society ignores the obvious physical indicators of gender? What is the message we are giving to our young people with regard to this subject?

In June 2015, Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.

You may not like the way Dr. McHugh has characterized this subject, but his opinion is based in reality. He uses the example of a person suffering from anorexia nervosa. Should we feed into this person’s distorted view of reality, or should we intervene and compassionately tell them the truth. They are not fat, they are dangerously thin and they are suffering from a false perception. Dr. McHugh’s opinion is based in reality. He uses the example of a person suffering from anorexia nervosa. Should we feed into this person’s distorted view of reality, or should we intervene and compassionately tell them the truth. They are not fat, they are dangerously thin and they are suffering from a false perception.

Applied to those suffering from gender dysphoria (the condition of feeling one’s emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one’s biological sex), what should be our course of action?

Should we feed into their distorted view of reality, that somehow God or Nature or biology had made a mistake and they are trapped inside the wrong body? I agree with Dr. McHugh, that would not be the right approach to this problem.

You can even make this same application to the gospel. Most people refuse to believe that they are sinners in need of the Savior. Like the anorexic or gender confused, they do not see reality clearly. They usually see themselves in the distorted light of self-righteousness, but will that view help them respond correctly to the good news? The answer is absolutely not. Denial is a common defense mechanism people use to maintain their present circumstances. These are the same people who see Christians as weak souls who need Jesus as a crutch. This way they can excuse themselves from placing their faith in Him.

People really are born sinners. This means that people come into this world burdened with all sorts of sinful desires. We truly are going to be a combination of nature (genetic disposition) and nurture (the effects of our upbringing, our family of origin). This includes all the positives and negatives associated with our human existence. To believe that a person is always making a choice with regard to identifying as being male or female is simply not accurate. To believe that a person cannot have same sex attraction when we live in a fallen world and our physical bodies are born in a sinful condition is to turn a blind eye to reality as it is revealed in the Word of God, Ps. 14:1-3, 51:5; Pro. 20:9; Is. 64:6; Matt. 15:19; Rom. 3:23; Gal. 3:22.

Let’s be careful to speak the truth in love to all people, especially to those who are categorized as being part of the LGBT community. People should be respected, if for no other reason than that they have been created in the image of God, Gen. 1:26-27. If you have not had the same experiences of another human being, remember the instructions of the Savior, “Condemn not,” Matt. 7:1. But definitely tell them the truth that God loves them, and He has demonstrated that great love in the Person and sacrifice of His Son, the Messiah, John 3:15-17.

So, yes, the world will no doubt become sillier and sillier as sin leavens and the time of our Savior’s appearing draws near. Let’s not make the mistake of being insensitive to others, because we disagree with their lifestyles or inability to face reality. It would be far better to follow our Savior’s example and, without condoning sin, love the sinner and offer them the real hope found only in the gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Submitted by Pastor Steven Rowitt, Ph.D.