Eunuchs ancient and modern
in Epiphanies
This discussion was created from comments split from: Trump officially Fucks Trans Kids Over.
Comments
Could you explain -for a vole of little brain -please?
Look up the story of Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts 8:26-40&version=ESV
Umm... I think if you ask most trans people they will tell you that it's emphatically not a choice, any more than being gay is. Gender affirming care is a choice.
Not quite accurate. Matthew 19:6-12 has this report:
What does this passage say about whether people are or aren't 'in the image of God'?
Even me.
PTL!
A little bit of reading around the subject suggests there are people today who undergo (or who are planning to undergo) voluntary castration for a wide variety of reasons. The gender identity of such people varies - they could be transitioning to female, continuing to identify as male, or identifying as "eunuch" (at least privately or in their own community, if not publicly).
In other words, "eunuch" seems to be recognised gender identity, and a bible passage about eunuchs might not be the best way of framing such a discussion.
Historical eunuch culture was quite different to the current culture of people who self-identify as eunuchs, in the same way that traditional ethno-specific third genders are quite different to a modern concept of nonbinary genders where someone might identify as a third gender. There are certainly overlapping features, they are related concepts but also very much not the same.
I think @Alan Cresswell needs to explain what he meant. Particularly as he made a comment that my Bible knowledge is lacking.
And, it's clear that this convert was both Ethiopian and a eunuch. It's also almost certain that the passage is included in part as a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah 56 (that both foreigners and eunuchs will find a place in the Temple courts).
The point of contention is the relationship between the group of people called "eunuchs" in this passage (and the Matthew 19 passage @Pomona mentioned) and the group of people who we would call "trans" and/or "intersex". As @Pomona has already said, there are good reasons to conclude that eunuchs would now be called trans and/or intersex. Even if this Ethiopian doesn't fit into a modern understanding of trans, they would certainly not be considered cis-gendered.
This passage certainly should result in us opening our arms to welcome all who accept the gospel message. Philip doesn't come up with any reasons why the Ethiopian shouldn't be baptised, he just climbs out of the chariot into the water and baptises them. Likewise, we shouldn't be putting barriers to people who believe in the gospel, no one is excluded for their gender or sex, their sexuality, race or any other reason. Anyone who claims to be following Christ, but would deny acceptance into the church of anyone, needs to spend a long time meditating on this passage.
And I think I can see why someone would want to use an established term, that captures at least something of the essence of who they are, rather trying to create a definition or a description from scratch.
Meanwhile, This seems to be rather stretching what Pomona said:
*modernity in the sense of the Modern Era aka anything after the French Revolution or thereabouts
Being enslaved and castrated is cruelty and domination inflicted by those with power over you It is not a reflection of who an individual knows they are born to be.
You said "the first recorded Gentile convert would today be classed as trans".
And you followed that up by a comment that that comment should have made most posters here think of the passage in Acts 8.
Both of which I still disagree with.
Yes, I didn't imply otherwise.
We know that various cultures at various times in history have created eunuchs for reasons that have nothing to do with gender identity. So the general eunuch therefore transgender inference that you seem to have thought should be obvious to everyone in your original posts does not make sense.
There is probably information out there about the role of eunuchs in first-century Ethiopian culture - I tried to look it up quickly before my last post but Google was not helpful (it's only interested in our biblical eunuch). I imagine that if eunuchism had actually been a way of managing transgenderism in first-century Ethiopia that would be unusual enough that it would form part our general historical knowledge about transgenderism. So subject to being corrected by somebody who has actually looked this up, I would guess that non-zero chance that the Ethiopian eunuch was trans was pretty much the same non-zero chance that anyone is trans. Which obviously is important for Christians to respect but has nothing to do with the Ethiopian eunuch per se.
I had always thought that the second sign in John 4:46ff where Jesus heals the son of a Royal Official and the whole household believed would be regarded as the first Gentile converts. Would the household, including slaves, have been Jewish?
I think this take swings a little bit too far in another direction (I don't mean in a bigoted way or anything like that, which is why I say a different direction rather than the opposite direction). The status of eunuchs within the Bible *is* an important thing for many trans and nonbinary Christians. There are a few different aspects to this, but imo the most important one is that eunuchs did formally occupy a third gender space within society regardless of any individual eunuch's perspective on their own gender (if they even had one, which in cultures where gender was about a public role rather than individual identity is not a given). People who would have been considered something Other than male or female explicitly being given high status and blessings in the Bible is really, really important - both for trans and nonbinary Christians, and also when considering how churches and society talk and behave about gender.
It is, imo, reasonable to read the Ethiopian eunuch as a representation of transness in the Bible - but whether they would be recognisably trans or not is almost besides the point. The entire reason for their high status in the Kandake's court is their third gender status (which would generally be more similar to traditional ethno-dependent third genders), and that kind of formal and explicit acknowledgement of people with third gender status being part of the new Church in the Bible is important in its own right imo. The eunuch doesn't need to be recognisably trans for that to still be highly disruptive to cissexism in the Church.
What is going on here is that we are trying to treat personal gender identification as equivalent to societal norms and/or the actual performance at historical times.
It simply does not work! We are comparing the flavours of apples bought in the supermarket with supposed flavours based on the DNA of apple pips recovered from a medieval midden.
I don't think we are trying to, or need to, treat the aspects you identify as equivalent. As Pomona pointed out, there have been multiple paths into the "job", so to speak. (Also that "the eunuch doesn't need to be recognisably trans for that to still be highly disruptive to cissexism in the Church.") To this I'd add that all paths into the job have one feature in common. And mention of apples brings to mind the chemical castration of Alan Turing.
Castration remains the same thing today as it was 4000 years ago, and (at least in English) the word for those who have been castrated covers all the varied reasons why it was undergone, and the wide range of public attitudes towards those who have undergone it, across different cultures and societies over the years. Whether social acceptance or stigma, productive purpose or marginalisation, or even punishment and eulogy.
But after 9000 years of cultivation maize is not recognizable as teosinte.
In any case, metaphors are illustrations, not arguments.
I think this advice is well taken, although I would say “gender” has many aspects rather than “gender identity” - the latter IME tends to be used fairly consistently to refer to personal identification or more precisely the individual’s experience of gender that forms the basis of this identification. But “gender” and consequently “transgender” have a variety of meanings.
My understanding of the “core” sense of what it means to be trans or nonbinary is to experience a gender identity that is inconsistent with identifying as one’s birth-assigned sex. When we talk about transgender rights in the modern context I think we are talking primarily about people who are transgender/nonbinary in this sense. But we can also think of gender (and consequently transgender) in the other senses that @Jengie Jon mentions.
Although there have been many paths to eunuchism throughout history, the hard reality about eunuchs in many cultures is that they were generally cisgender boys and men who were castrated involuntarily or at least without regard to their gender identity or the consequences of castration on their well-being. I’m very reluctant to extend the concept of transgenderism to circumstances like these. It seems guaranteed to create confusion and frankly to undermine the modern conception of transgender rights. But if we are going to extend the concept in this way I think we need to be clear that we are not talking about the same thing as we are in the context of modern transgender rights.
The story was covered by a number of sources, including LBC:
With regard to 'For women Scotland' they are a nasty and well-funded anti-trans campaign group - which isnt mentioned in that piece. They wouldn't pass the source rules here for their own stuff.
I am a Scottish woman - they are not 'for me' - they utterly disgust me. As far as I'm concerned they ought to be called 'For Bigotry Scotland'.
I feel a bit queasy seeing them quoted here. I feel so angry that they pretend they somehow speak for women like me.
The thing is that I can readily conceive that orchiectomy might be an appropriate gender-affirming procedure for some nonbinary or third-gender people. (With the obvious caveat that I’m not a medical professional so I don’t really know.) The problem is one of terminology. I’m not going to try to dictate to people how they self-identify but obviously the historical overtones bring about considerable potential for confusion and moral panic - which is exactly what happened here.
Embracing a Eunuch Identity
I can't comment on his Biblical theories as I'm no expert but it's a moving and thoughtful reflection on his own journey and what affirms him.
So premenopausal women with hysterectomies, maybe. Is the cultural import comparable? The emasculated man is stigmatized as effeminate and less powerful. I don't really know how young women who can't have children are seen -- if they wanted to bear children it's a huge personal loss, obviously, but I'm not aware of there being the cultural stigma around them the way there is for men who are or seem to be or are in a derogatory way said to be emasculated.
He thinks it's appropriate for him. I'm sure there are others in that situation who don't find it appropriate. But it is Mr Wassersug's situation and he finds it meaningful so I'm not sure on what grounds you would label his own understanding of himself to be not 'appropriate'?
Apparently, there were females who became eunuchs in several ancient Chinese dynasties. https://min.news/en/history/a78ba359af21bb74240521c336da4fe7.html
@Louise , thank you. I hadn't read Mr Wussersug's article but now have.
Obviously I wouldn't say there's anything 'inappropriate' about his understanding of himself after treatment for prostate cancer. But nevertheless I was surprised to put it mildly to read of him describing himself as 'emasculated' and 'neither fully male or fully female ' and 'in some ways transgender'. In my work I meet many men who are undergoing androgen deprivation therapy (also called chemical castration though this term is hardly used now) for prostate cancer. None of them feel they need to hide in shame or feel they aren't 'proper men' or anything like that. They are just grateful for the extra years of life the treatment is (hopefully) giving them.
Perhaps this an example of the very wide range of views and experiences that can arise from different cultures and different religious perspectives?
Yes, they (LHRH agonists - usually in the UK known as GnRH agonists) are powerful drugs. No wonder their use as puberty blockers is controversial.