“Mokusatsu.” That was the word uttered by Japanese Primer Minister Kantaro Suzuki when asked whether or not the Japanese would surrender. Depending on the context, that word has several different meanings. It can mean “no comment.” Or it can be far more aggressive and mean something like “not worthy of comment; held in silent contempt”.
The Allies interpreted mokusatsu in the worst way possible and decided that a peaceful surrender was out of the question, the atomic bomb, they believed, would be their only option to bring about the Japanese surrender.
It's a sad tale of mistranslation. But this is a common occurrence when lives are at stake and when rhetoric becomes heated. We tend to view one another in the worst possible light, looking for a moment to wage war and interpreting a small misunderstanding as nefarious intent.
When a person feels that important things are threatened by the opposition (and at times they are), it is difficult to have a clear discussion. As I try to answer this question about using transgender pronouns, I feel some trepidation at the possibility of uttering my own mokusatsu.
My aim here is to tone down the rhetoric and try to represent the differing positions on this question. I want you to read this not to have fodder for your own cannon but to try to understand a position that may not be yours.
I see four principal answers to this question. But before we engage those, it might be helpful to define our terms.
What Do We Mean by Transgender Pronouns?
Let’s go back to the opening illustration. What would have happened if someone had asked a follow-up question to Prime Minister Suzuki? Rather than assuming that they understood his words, it would have prevented the death of many people had someone simply asked, “What do you mean by mokusatsu?”
In the same way, it is helpful for those on all sides of this debate to be able to be heard and to explain their perspective. In this instance, it is likely best to have those who identify as transgender be able to define their terms.
This is a simple definition given by NPR: "Transgender, or simply trans, is an adjective used to describe someone whose gender identity differs from the sex assigned at birth. A transgender man, for example, is someone who was listed as female at birth but whose gender identity is male."
This is where the use of gender-specific pronouns comes into play. If a person is referring to you in the third person, which phrase should be used? Should they use the gender you were assigned at birth? (Some would prefer that the language here be “given at birth.” I am using the phrase as quoted by NPR to represent the language of those who identify as transgender.
I’ve tried keeping the language of those who would be giving that particular argument. But know that this also is part of the debate.) Or should you use the gender which they identify with? Or should we simply do away with these gendered terms and use “they”? More recently, “ze” and “hir” (pronounced like “z” and “here”) can also be used as a gender-neutral pronoun set.
As a Christian, does it matter which pronouns I use? It’s important to understand that, for many, there is more at stake here than simple grammar. Andrew T. Walker says this about the core of the debate:
"This is where the true debate resides. Christianity views reality through the lens of Scripture, which speaks of male and female as beings defined by their anatomical and reproductive organization (Genesis 1:26–28). Hormones or surgery cannot override the underlying realities of our genetic structure. If culture tries to define male and female apart from anatomy and reproductive organization, male and female become fluid, absurd categories. Hence where we are as a culture."
Whether you agree or disagree with Walker’s conclusion or even his descriptor of what a Christian believes, he does outline the nature of the debate. Are we defined by the “underlying realities” of our genetic structure, or can male and female be defined apart from anatomy and reproductive organization?
How you answer those questions will likely determine how you answer the question, which is the concern of this article. Here are the four main answers to that question:
1. You Should Never Use a Preferred Pronoun
Some would frown upon my use of the term “preferred” pronoun. As the LGBTQ+ Resource Center for the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs states, “Saying 'preferred' makes it seem like using someone’s pronouns is optional when, in reality, using a person’s pronouns is the most basic need they have to feel safe and to exist in public spaces.”
I have chosen to keep this language, however, to make it sensible to the construction of the arguments. Bunyan, the author of Pilgrim’s Progress, spent 12 years in prison. He could have left any moment. He had a wife and four children at home (one of them blind). All he had to do to be home with his family, was to agree to no longer preach in the region without a license.
Bunyan refused to budge. This is what he said: "If nothing will do unless I make of my conscience a continual butchery and slaughter shop unless putting out my own eyes, I commit to the blind to lead me, as I doubt not is the desire by some, I have determined, the Almighty God being my help and shield, yet to suffer if frail life might continue so long, even till the moss shall grow on mine eyebrows, rather than thus to violate my faith and principles."
Some feel the same way as Bunyan when it comes to transgender issues. It would be a violation of their conscience to affirm something which they believe to be untrue. Therefore, they would argue that they should never use a preferred pronoun that does not match the gender given at birth. But it’s not only a matter of personal conscience.
They would say that it is also for the sake of love and truth. Scripture calls us to speak the truth in love. Such a one might use this logical syllogism:
Major Premise: “God made them male and female.” We are defined by our anatomy.
Minor Premise: Love rejoices in the truth.
Conclusion: The most loving thing I can do is tell you the truth.
One might say the best thing we can do for someone is to speak in such a way that adheres to reality as defined by the scriptures. To concede this point would be to concede far too much, to the detriment of society and to the person who is confused.
Denny Burk would be an example of someone who would say we should never use a preferred pronoun. He says this:
"We are not allowed to speak in ways that are fundamentally dishonest and that undermine the truth of God’s word about how he made us and the world. Transgender ideology is fundamentally a revolt against God’s truth. It encourages people–sometimes very disturbed and hurting people–to deny who God made them to be. It traps them in a way of thinking and living that is harmful to them and that alienates them from God’s truth. We do not serve them or love them well by speaking as if transgender fictions are true."
2. You May Use a Preferred Pronoun for Missional or Hospitality Reasons
Those in this camp might share a similar worldview to Burk but bristle at his language and strong stance. Is it possible that using someone’s preferred pronouns is not necessarily a violation of truth?
Is it possible my conscience may not condemn me? People call me “Mike." My birth name is Michael. I think that’s the name that I should be called if I’m in trouble, so I prefer to be called “Mike.” Are people engaging in an untruth when they call me by a preferred name?
Now, I’ll grant that this is not the most air-tight argument. There is something different at stake when you call me by a nickname as opposed to calling me a gender different than the one given at birth. To one who holds the previous position, you’d be conceding far too much.
Yet, conceptually we can at least see that there are times when we might call someone by a preferred name instead of the one given to them at birth. Look at the way Paul engaged at Mars Hill (Acts 17). Notice how he spoke the cultural language before turning the phrase to present truth.
Notice how he aimed to “become all things to all people, that by all means” he might save some (1 Corinthians 9:22). Could there not be a way in which we could speak the language of the culture, not be needlessly divisive so that we can develop enough relationship to speak the love of Christ into someone’s life.
After all, isn’t sharing the good news of Jesus our main goal of cultural engagement? Do we not still believe that if Christ grabs hold of someone’s heart, that sanctification will happen? This is the position of Steven West. West believes that Christians are given the freedom to do what they see best missionally.
Admitting that the language is somewhat stilted, he asks, "But does a Christian have the liberty to say, 'I’m a Christian, and I believe that God created people as either male or female. I need to honor God. But I’m willing to honor your wishes in regards to being called ‘ze’ because I want to have an ongoing relationship with you, and I want to be able to tell you more about the love of God in Jesus Christ.'”
3. You Should Use a Preferred Pronoun Because it’s the Right Thing to Do
It would take more space than we have here to fully outline an inclusive and transgender-affirming position. For now, it is enough to note that one who answers the article’s question this way likely believes that male and female are defined apart from anatomy and reproductive organization.
Just as those representing the previous positions, they would claim the name of Christ and make arguments from Scripture and contend their position as a biblical worldview. However, we must acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference here on the core issues of this debate.
Some might claim that transgender is how they were created by God. This is the position taken by Katie Leone, who says, "In fact, being transgender does not mean that I was born in the wrong body. Being transgender means that God has placed me in a body that looks like one gender while I identify as being another. It is neither right nor wrong that I am a female in a male body, as much as it is neither right nor wrong that I am six foot tall and left-handed. These things just are."
Notice the language here and the claim being made. This is not a person saying something like, “Yeah, I’m a male but I choose to be a female.” What is being argued is that their gender identity is different than their anatomy. To call a transgender woman a “he” would be relegating their gender down to genitalia. But gender, one would argue, is far more than anatomy and reproductive organization.
Mark Wingfield represents this position when he says, "Emphatically and conclusively, this is not a choice. It is who a person is. Did you choose to have red hair? Did you choose to be tall or short? Did you choose to have the genetic markers you have? Of course not. Transgender persons are simply acknowledging that the gender identity assigned to them at birth because of physical anatomy does not match the brain, biochemical, and genetic gender identity they know inside."
4. You Must Use a Preferred Pronoun
For some, this isn’t even a question to be asked. While some headlines blew this out of proportion, it is true in New York City legal code that a business or property owner “intentionally and repeatedly refusing to use an individual’s preferred pronoun” will be subject to fines (potentially in excess of $250K).
That is the legal side of things. There is also, for some, a common courtesy to using a preferred pronoun. Malicious misnaming is a common trope on television and movies. One particular example is in The Matrix. Agent Smith refuses to call Neo by his new name but instead continues to call him Mr. Anderson (his name when he was a slave to the Matrix).
If your name is Gary and a co-worker knowingly continues to call you Larry (or Jerry), it would be a sign of disrespect (HT: Parks and Recreation). In the same way, refusing to use a preferred pronoun is seen as a similar slight.
BetterUp explains, "The thing is, when someone identifies themselves to you, you refer to them in that way as a sign of respect and acknowledgment. To do anything else is a not-so-subtle rejection of their identity. It communicates to these people that they aren’t welcome or accepted."
Within such a view it isn’t optional to refer to someone by something other than what they want to be called. It is also seen as harmful to intentionally misgender someone.
According to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, there is much at stake: "When someone is referred to with the wrong pronoun, it can make them feel disrespected, invalidated, dismissed, alienated, or dysphoric (often all of the above). All major professional American psychological and psychiatric associations recognize that inclusive language usage for LGBTQ+ youth and adults drastically decreases experiences of depression, social anxiety, suicidal ideation, and other negative mental health factors."
Why Does This Matter?
As you can see, for some there isn’t much room for debate. How could someone with the first and fourth view engage one another? This is where most of the heat is coming from in these discussions. When either side takes a must position, it doesn’t leave much room for dialogue.
How you answer this question is likely going to be determined by how you view the overall discussion surrounding transgender identity. But it will also be determined by how you choose to engage the other side of the debate. Is there room for hospitality on both sides?
What does it look like for us to love one another on this issue? What does it look like for us to boldly follow our conscience but also entrust each other to the Lord’s care? How can I love someone who disagrees with me?
How can we learn to interact with one another from a shared foundation of being made in the image of God? When our policies and politics seem to be sprinting towards a “must” (on either end), how can we as Christians model a different way of engagement?
These are difficult questions by themselves. But I fear that they aren’t being asked. And when both sides seem to fear for their lives (some metaphorical, others literally), it’s difficult not to have heated rhetoric.
My hope in this rather short piece is that we might learn to hear what others are saying, find some common ground, and figure out how to truly love one another as Christ commanded.
Photo Credit: ©Getty Images/Irina Ivanova
Mike Leake is husband to Nikki and father to Isaiah and Hannah. He is also the lead pastor at Calvary of Neosho, MO. Mike is the author of Torn to Heal and Jesus Is All You Need. His writing home is http://mikeleake.net and you can connect with him on Twitter @mikeleake. Mike has a new writing project at Proverbs4Today.
