On sex and gender

In this post, I (obviously) present my thoughts on gender.

I recognize this is a BIG topic, and I’m merely scratching the surface of this conversation. I also know that everything I share is coming from my own perspective and education as a cisgender, heterosexual, married woman in her 40s who has loads of built-in advantages in life. I want to share my experience as someone who spent my entire childhood and the majority of my adult life completely immersed in a lifestyle that orbited around religion. In the last 7 years, I’ve explored viewpoints from many different religions and spiritual practices, and have settled somewhat on a set of values that help me love others in a way that most deeply aligns. I’ve also received formal education that has helped me understand the human brain and psyche and has given me an additional lens through which to view human behavior. Why bother writing this at all, you might ask? Well, it’s been sitting in my “draft” folder for about two years, and I suppose I never felt particularly compelled to publish it because many people are much more qualified to speak on this subject than I. I’m also ashamed to admit I haven’t been very brave. In my most immediate circles, I’ve spoken up about these issues, but not in a larger context. Some of it is the fear of saying the wrong thing, causing harm, or putting myself in a position to be criticized. It’s embarrassing to admit, knowing that people have suffered much, much worse than simply being called names online, just for being themselves. I finally realized that with the absurd number of troubling things happening at the time of this publishing, the more voices speaking up about these topics, the better.

It’s only fair I should let you know I consider myself a recovering religious person, and if I’m going to label myself as anything, I suppose I’d wear a “Hello, I’m an agnostic” sticker. The edges are peeling up because I really hate labels, and I don’t know that the label is keen on sticking to me either. For some of you, that label is enough to make you want to stop reading right now because that moniker disqualifies me from speaking about anything religious. Fair enough.

However, if you’re intent on still reading, here’s who this post is for:

1) those who grew up like I did and are not finding the teachings of their churches to fit with the fundamental principles of Christianity (to love God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself). You love Jesus, but have found the past several years in particular to be a tumultuous and confusing time to be in church. Perhaps you don’t want to give up the label Christian, but also have the ick because many who wear that label are not representing your beliefs well.

2) those who are part of the LGBTQ+ community and are still unraveling the deeply ingrained religious teachings.

3) those who didn’t necessarily grow up with the same religious teachings and don’t quite understand how religious folk can have the views they do about LGBTQ+ community. Hopefully, this will shed some light.

That being said, here are some of the things I considered and wrestled with to move from “homosexuality is a sin” to embracing and advocating for the rights of all. I’ll explore how our concepts of gender are culturally constructed rather than divinely ordained, and discuss why 'private acceptance' isn't enough.

Religion q: What is God’s sex?

I was a new mom. My baby girl was born in May of 2008, and in July, there was an uproar in the evangelical community. The uproar was a result of a fictional book that had just been released called The Shack. I was swept up into the whirlwind of caution with other evangelicals of this new book. The uproar was caused by part of the story where God the Father appears to the main character as a woman. And not just any woman, but a black woman. It took me quite a while to read the book, in part due to my rebellious nature that requires me to ignore popular things until they’ve cooled off a bit. When I eventually read the book, I couldn’t wrap my head around what the big fuss was about. The reason God appeared as a woman made so much sense to me. God knew that the guy had a big problem with his dad, so appearing to him as a mother figure automatically bypassed some of his big emotional blocks. It seemed to me a compassionate and loving thing for God to do. It got me thinking: what gender is God anyway? Even in the Genesis account of creation, God’s not a he. God is a they (Elohim). If Adam was made in God’s image, and Eve was taken out of Adam, then Adam wasn’t the image of God by himself, but only when Eve was still part of him. Consider this: if you believe God is male, and maleness is defined by biology and reproductive parts, there’s no way God is male according to most brands of Christianity that believe God doesn’t have a body. For my entire childhood and the majority of my adult life, I was told in direct and subtle ways my entire life in the Christian church that God was male. Not only that, but my spiritual authority as a woman could never compare to the authority of a male. Ever. I rarely (if ever) heard God referred to as she, they, or in female metaphors. There is a whole host of misogyny that follows this theological perspective. How could it not? You don’t have to look far to hear about men subjugating their daughters and wives (and women unrelated to them) to their authority, or the terrible abuse of power within male-dominated religious structures. An atrocious amount of abuse has been perpetuated at the hands of religious men who got a pass from other men because they were…men. “Spiritual authority” has been systematically placed in the exact places it should be removed. Once someone starts down the path of digging into patriarchal structures in religion, the history of the bible, church history, and the spread of religion, a lot of what is considered common sense in Christianity unravels.

Biology and culture: sex vs gender

Try this little thought experiment with me. Think about whether these things are male/masculine or female/feminine.

The color pink
Fashion/high heels/makeup
Computer programming
Emotional expression

Our initial reactions to these terms are completely tied up in our culture, religious beliefs, personal and collective history, and emotions. Here’s a bit of history to dig out from current viewpoints:

Colors for Babies/Children The pink-blue gender color coding we're familiar with today is actually relatively recent. In the early 1900s, the recommended colors were often reversed: pink was considered more appropriate for boys because it was "a more decided and stronger color" related to red, while blue was considered "more delicate and dainty" and thus suitable for girls. The current color associations only became firmly established in American culture after World War II, around the 1940s.

Men's Fashion: In the 18th century, European aristocratic men commonly wore elaborate clothing with embroidery, lace, and jewelry that would today be considered extremely feminine. Men's fashion included silk stockings, high heels, beauty marks, wigs, and cosmetics. These fashion choices weren't considered feminine but rather signaled wealth, status, and refinement.

Computer Programming: The field of computer programming was initially dominated by women. During World War II and into the 1950s and 60s, computing and programming were considered clerical work - similar to typing or operating a telephone switchboard - and therefore "women's work." Pioneering programmers like Grace Hopper and the women who programmed ENIAC (the first electronic general-purpose computer) were essential to early computing development. The shift began in the mid-1960s when programming began to be viewed as intellectually challenging and prestigious. As the field gained status and higher pay, men began to dominate, and computing culture began to align with masculine stereotypes.

Emotional Expression: In 18th and early-19th-century Western culture, emotional sensitivity was considered a positive trait for upper-class men. Romantic male friendships that included emotional intimacy, tears, and affectionate language were common and socially acceptable. This began to change in the late 19th century with the rise of a more stoic, reserved masculine ideal.

I see content all the time about women with muscles, men wearing nail polish, gendered body language, “trad wife”, body count, alpha male, girlboss, modesty…the list is endless. These all reinforce versions of what a female or male should do and be. Seeing gender “norms” through a lens of history, cognitive bias, tradition, religion, and power, the grasp on what is right, appropriate, or natural for men and women changes everything.

Sex is the biological traits of an organism, gender encompasses self-expression, cultural influences, social expectations, and personal identity.

Now, here’s an additional fascinating and confusing aspect of biological sex: it’s complicated. Typically, visible body parts correspond with genetics. In genetics nerd terminology, the phenotype matches the genotype. But sometimes, it doesn’t. Genetics is weird, unpredictable, complicated, and we are woefully ignorant of most of it. Scientists know what about a measly 3% of DNA does. The majority of the function of DNA is completely outside the realm of understanding (for now). There are countless examples in history and modern day of people who are intersex (the old term I grew up with is “hermaphrodite”). Ambiguous genitalia exist. Physical characteristics due to things like PCOS, thyroid disorders, and aromatase excess—things that cause excessive body hair in females, abnormal weight distribution, or the development of breasts in males—prove the point.

All humans have a desire to control their environment. Totally normal. Our brains run on prediction. I could go on for ages about how memory works and how bias influences our perceptions and memories, but the key takeaway here is this: we don’t like things that we cannot fit into neat, predictable boxes, preferably with color-coded labels. Anytime something makes it difficult for us to activate heuristics, our brains have to work a bit harder to make sense of what we’re seeing. Our brains do NOT like this. It’s metabolically expensive, meaning when we experience something unfamiliar, like a woman who doesn’t have all the “normal” characteristics of a woman, it requires our brains to use more calories to make sense of this. Knowing our brains resist this is the first step towards examining our biases.

*At the end of the post, I’ve shared interesting biological science about humans, written by someone much more knowledgeable than I on the subject of sex, chromosomes, and sexual presentation.

shared responsibility

Understanding gender as partially cultural wasn't enough for me to completely shift my perspective, but learning how abstract theological debates had devastating real-world consequences for real people did.

In the early 1980s in Minnesota, Karen Thompson and Sharon Kowalski lived as partners. They exchanged rings and named each other as insurance beneficiaries—all while keeping their relationship private, even from Sharon's family. On November 13, 1983, everything changed when a drunk driver crashed into Sharon's car. The accident left the 27-year-old with severe brain injuries. Though initially comatose, Sharon eventually regained consciousness but couldn't speak and could only move her right hand. Karen devoted herself to Sharon's recovery. As a physical education professor, she was uniquely equipped to help. She worked tirelessly with Sharon, teaching her to sip from a glass, comb her hair, and communicate through a typewriter. Sharon's parents initially seemed encouraged by their daughter's progress.

However, when Karen revealed to the Kowalskis that she and Sharon were more than roommates—they were partners—the revelation shattered their fragile cooperation. Sharon's father gained guardianship and cut off Karen's visitation rights in July 1985. He moved Sharon to a nursing home 180 miles away, where Karen was not allowed to visit. Ever. What followed was an eight-year legal battle that became a landmark case for LGBTQ+ rights. Without legal protections or documentation of Sharon's wishes, Karen had no recognized relationship to the woman she loved. Courts consistently sided with blood relatives over chosen family. The case gained national attention, with disability rights advocates joining forces with gay rights groups. Finally, in December 1991, the Minnesota Court of Appeals granted Karen guardianship, acknowledging that Sharon had consistently expressed her wish to "go home to St. Cloud with Karen." When finally reunited, Sharon had lost crucial rehabilitation years. Yet under Karen's care, she began making progress again—standing with a brace, communicating, and even developing a mischievous streak at card games.

Stories like Karen and Sharon’s are not uncommon. For a while, I had the perspective of, “Well, I guess I don’t care what people do in their private lives.” Stories like theirs made me realize how unjust and utterly cruel many laws are. It wasn’t enough for me to privately be “okay” with what people were doing. I have a suspicion that many of you feel like this, not grasping this perspective until you hear stories of people in committed relationships, barred from making end-of-life care decisions for their loved ones. Stories like Karen and Sharon's forced me to examine what was really driving opposition to same-sex relationships in religious communities. I realized that beneath theological arguments often lay something much more visceral. I saw footage of people from a Baptist church picketing funerals because the deceased was gay. I was appalled that I shared the same label of “Christian” with people who would be so callous as to tell a grieving father his son was in hell.

In 2015, when marriage equality came into law, I was still an “one man, one woman, for life” advocate. I had started to understand that same sex attraction wasn’t a choice, but I still thought the only appropriate route for people who had those inclinations was celibacy. I listened to stories of people in the church who admitted their attraction to the same sex, and their commitment to remain single. Forever. They believed their friendships, family relationships would be sufficient to live a full, satisfying life. They didn’t need romantic relationships. Platonic would do just fine. If someone really felt like that (and many people do who would consider themselves asexual), then that choice was fine. But what about the people who had same sex attraction and longed for someone to share their life with?

The religious, puritanical preoccupation with sex blinds many people to understanding true partnership. People get hung up on their revulsion of any sexual acts outside of “normal ways” (meaning heterosexual, penetrative sexual acts). I don’t think this is talked about much in religious circles, but a person’s level of tolerance for something they consider gross impacts how they think about sex. A hurdle like a visceral disgust response can prevent deeper examination of what a meaningful partnership actually entails. This focus on the physical act itself—and particularly on policing which bodies can touch which bodies in which ways—often overshadows the emotional, intellectual, and spiritual dimensions of human connection that form the foundation of lasting relationships. The disgust response short-circuits this more expansive perspective, reducing complex human beings to the single dimension of how they have sex.

This disgust-based morality also fails to acknowledge that what constitutes "normal" sexual behavior is largely culturally constructed. What's considered taboo in one culture might be celebrated in another. This fixation on the mechanics of sex distracts from the qualities that sustain loving partnerships: mutual respect, emotional intimacy, shared values, communication, trust, and commitment to each other's well-being. These are the elements that determine whether a relationship is healthy and fulfilling—not the gender of the participants or the specific physical acts they engage in.

Final thoughts

The more we can get offline and into real life, the more beauty and diversity we will experience. Life is much less boring, much less predictable, much less siloed than our fear would try to make it be. My journey from rigid religious views to full affirmation wasn't quick or easy. I questioned deeply held beliefs, examined history and science, and most importantly, listened to real stories of harm and love. This isn’t a final word, but as an invitation to those still wrestling with these questions to be brave. Look at history, both personal and collective, inside the church and outside. Ask yourself some hard questions about your knee-jerk reactions. Take time to get to know people who have a different perspective from you. It’s possible that you will end up leaving church like I did…but perhaps you’ll stay and make important changes. At the end of the day, we all face the Great Mystery beyond what we can see. I want to know with my final breath that I did what I could to be the most compassionate, curious, and truthful human I can be.

Resources:

Mental health resources for LGBTQ+

The Trevor Project: Provides crisis intervention and suicide prevention services for LGBTQ+ young people. They offer a 24/7 crisis hotline (1-866-488-7386), text line (text START to 678-678), and chat service

Trans Lifeline (877-565-8860): A peer support hotline run by and for trans people.

Religious and scholarly debate and education

Dan McClellan: scholar of theology and the Bible: https://www.youtube.com/@maklelan (he has a great book that just came out called The Bible Says So

Support for bringing advocacy to faith communities

Believe Out Loud: An online community that empowers Christians to work for justice for LGBTQ+ people within their faith communities: https://www.believeoutloud.com/

Dignity USA: For Catholics who support LGBTQ+ inclusion within the Catholic Church: https://www.dignityusa.org/

*Written by Grace Pokela

"I just saw a transphobic post that was like, ‘In a sexual species, females have two X chromosomes and males have an X and Y, I’m not a bigot it’s just science.’ I’m a science teacher, so I commented this.

First of all, in a sexual species, you can have females be XX and males be X (insects), you can have females be ZW and males be ZZ (birds), you can have females be females because they developed in a warm environment and males be males because they developed in a cool environment (reptiles), you can have females be females because they lost a penis sword fighting contest (some flatworms), you can have males be males because they were born female, but changed sexes because the only male in their group died (parrotfish and clownfish), you can have males look and act like females because they are trying to get close enough to actual females to mate with them (cuttlefish, bluegills, others), or you can be one of thousands of sexes (slime mold, some mushrooms.) Oh, did you mean humans? Oh ok then. You can be male because you were born female, but you have a 5-alphareductase deficiency and so you grew a penis at age 12. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but you are insensitive to androgens, and so you have a female body. You can be male because you have an X and a Y chromosome but your Y is missing the SRY gene, and so you have a female body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but one of your X’s HAS an SRY gene, and so you have a male body. You can be male because you have two chromosomes—but also a Y. You can be female because you have only one X chromosome at all. And you can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but your heart and brain are male.”