We are born male or female. We are, therefore, male or female. And one becomes, through reproduction, a mother or father. The way we manifest our identity as a man or a woman is going to either conform to “socio-cultural standards” or be a form of reaction against these same socio-cultural standards, or be a mixture of conformity and reaction.

Nature, Gender, and Biological Sex
Introduction
It is becoming more and more common to hear politicians, social media influencers, and celebrities discussing biological sex and gender in much the same way that they discuss religious or political affiliations. We are told that we choose them, to a certain extent, or, perhaps, that we are chosen by them and only come to a progressive discovery that we just “are” Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Republican, Democrat, Male, Female, or something else. What we are hearing through the various media outlets, in cinema, and online, is essentially a trickle-down effect from research and theorizing that has been going on in the“academy” for well over 100 years.1
According to the Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender and Gender-Nonconforming People (hereafter, SOC), published by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (hereafter, WPATH), “Sex” is defined as follows, “Sex is assigned at birth as male or female, usually based on the appearance of the external genitalia. When the external genitalia are ambiguous, other components of sex (internal genitalia, chromosomal and hormonal sex) are considered in order to assign sex (Grumbach, Hughes, & Conte, 2003; MacLaughlin & Donahoe, 2004; Money & Ehrhardt, 1972; Vilain, 2000). For most people, gender identity and expression are consistent with their sex assigned at birth; for transsexual, transgender, and gender-nonconforming individuals, gender identity or expression differ from their sex assigned at birth.”2 The term “Gender Identity,” used in the second part of this definition, is defined as “A person’s intrinsic sense of being male (a boy or a man), female (a girl or woman), or an alternative gender (e.g., boygirl, girlboy, transgender, genderqueer, eunuch) (Bockting, 1999; Stoller, 1964).”3
From these definitions alone, which are increasingly influential on public opinion, it is clear that biological sex and gender are no longer understood, as they historically have been, in relation to a person’s phenotypical and genotypical traits. Rather, they are  presented to the public as something that is “assigned” or “imposed” upon children at their birth, though potentially (and truly) discovered at a later time. Indeed, models of gender-fluidity are becoming more and more prominent in discussions about sex, gender, and studies related to the social aspects of “being” some “gender”.4 We are told that it sometimes happens that an individual’s “gender identity or expressions” differ from the biological sex they were assigned at birth. This “gender identity” refers to one’s intrinsic sense of identity—who or what they feel themselves to be—or, their way of socially acting in relation to reproductive processes. Gender, and even biological sex, is a social construct which needs to be deconstructed.
The question we wish to discuss is, does natural law have anything to say to this cultural phenomenon? To do so, we will provide a quick reminder of what natural law is. We will then perform a short “experiment” of sorts, illustrating how natural law theory can be helpful in public discussions surrounding sexuality.5 In this second section, we will first consider questions related to biological sex, and then turn to questions related to gender.
Natural Law and the Gender-Identity Debate
What is Natural Law?
As we have stated elsewhere, natural law, as that part of the eternal law which applies specifically to human beings, is the rule or norm of practical reason which governs all human actions. Natural law is “natural” because it is based upon human “nature”—what humans “are” as designed by their Creator6—and not upon the human will.7 Natural law is a “law” because it is not only binding (prescriptive and proscriptive commands) on all humans, but also because it directs all humans to their proper end and common good, and is in principle knowable by all humans.8 Some might wonder about the promulgation of natural law, suggesting either (1) that it is not promulgated, as there is no “place” where one can find it written down, or (2) that it is not promulgated, because it appears that not all are aware of it.
To the first objection, we reply (a) that it is inscribed on the mind of man—it is more naturally anchored in the mind of man than the Operating System and basic applications are in a newly purchased i-Phone.9 Furthermore, (b) as if “permanent inscription” of the law on the mind of man was not sufficient, many of the early Reformers held that God also “published” the main tenets of natural law in the 10 Commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai.
To the second objection, we reply that ignorance of a law is proof neither that the law was not promulgated, nor that one can be held non-guilty if one breaks the law. It is simply not the case, even in our technologically advanced age, that all of those who live within any given municipality are aware when new laws are created, even though they may be posted publicly. Even if one is not aware of a law which has been promulgated, one is still held responsible for knowing about it (and seeking to find out what regulations may apply to any socially affective action one makes), and one is considered guilty for breaking the law whether one knows about it or not.10 In the same way, though the Natural Law is equally promulgated to all, it is not necessarily equally known by all. Just as there may be many who are unaware of the laws in a given area, there may be many who, due to lack of time, training, or ability, or due to negligence (vicious or innocent), have less knowledge of the givings of the Natural Law than others. However, the Natural Law is sufficiently promulgated that those who break it are rightly condemned.
How can we apply Natural Law to Gender and Sexuality?
Though there are many aspects of transgender theory and the philosophy of gender that we could discuss, we will concentrate on two aspects which are fundamental to the discussion: (1) biological sex and (2) gender or gender-identity. As there is somewhat more of a consensus on the first, we will begin with biological sex and then turn to gender. Natural law, grounding human morality in human nature, is able to call upon the observations of human biology to arrive at conclusions concerning sexual morality. In what follows, we will approach the question of sexuality in a way which could be broadly construed as a natural law approach to sexuality. Such an approach necessarily begins with an examination of what is meant by the terms “biological sex” and “gender”.
Biological Sex
Despite the fact that some gender theorists suggest that biological sex is fluid and that bodily changes associated with sexual development are ambiguous until given meaning in a socio-cultural context,11 the study of biological life reveals a number of important natural truths about human beings, which have normative implications for our question. First of all, though some gender theorists claim that biological sex is “assigned” at birth, or that individuals must “determine” their sex when they discover, create, or recreate their “gender identification,”12 it is still recognized by most that biological sex is determined at the molecular level,13 and “discovered” through the examination, first, of the phenotypical traits of an individual; and, then, if there is some doubt as to the biological sex of an individual, genotypical traits can be examined.14 Some gender theorists, though they see biological sex as a bodily reality, argue that the bodily changes related to reproductive processes take on the meaning that we give them within the society in which we find ourselves, and in relation to the gender structures of our culture.15 It is worth emphasizing here that even for those who deny that biological sex is “determined” by genetics and discovered through examination, it remains, by their own admission, inescapably related to genotypical and phenotypical traits. Connell and Pearse, for example, suggest that bodily processes related to reproduction, such as childcare, birthing, and sexual interaction “which deploy human bodies’ capacities to engender, to give birth, to give milk, to give and receive sexual pleasure,” should be understood as “an arena, a bodily site where something social happens…the creation of the cultural categories ‘women’ and ‘men’.”16 We will address the question of gender in the next section, but it is worth noting that they recognize that biological traits do have some bearing upon what they see as culturally relative categories.
Secondly, going a step further, recent research into the function and interrelation of the various parts of human bodies has shown that the piece-meal “mechanistic” view of the human being, which sees the human body as highly modifiable (malleable) through the removal, addition, or replacement of body parts, is far from the truth, especially in relation to our biological sex. Rather, “Systems Biology,” which understands living things as dynamic networks of integrated parts all working together for the growth and flourishing of the individual, suggests that “the sexual development of an organism cannot be readily divorced from its overall developmental trajectory.”17
It follows that, “the specification of sex/gender and the maturation of the sexual organism is the result not of the activity of a single gene but of the interactions among numerous genes and the molecules that they encode. Together these molecules determine the shape and overall trajectory of human sexual development.”18 This implies that in discovering the biological sex of an organism, one does not rely exclusively on genotypical or phenotypical traits, but must also consider how the phenotypical traits of the biological organism have naturally developed, in relation to their proper ends and functions. If biological sex is determined by the role of the sexual organs, based on the natural development of a biological organism, in relation to the process of human reproduction, then there can only be two sexes — male and female — one that, to put it simply, fertilizes an egg, and one that produces the egg which will be fertilized and which brings the fertilized egg to term.19 In relation, then, to biological sex, we find that it is neither assigned nor determined by doctors, but, rather, discovered by observation.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by John I. Maynard |
Monday, January 23, 2023
How does the biblical doctrine of “Free Will” address the popular notions of “gay Christianity” or what has been called Side B or Revoice theology?  This false teaching claims that one’s sexual orientation (a Freudian concept not a biblical one) is present at birth and is unchangeable. Indeed, this teaching considers it abusive to attempt to turn a redeemed sinner from his perverse and abominable desires to right, good, natural and God-honoring sexual desires. But WCF 9 teaches us that when we come to Christ in faith and repentance, he fundamentally changes us into a “new man.” 

It is almost universally accepted today that a person who identifies as homosexual was “born that way” and therefore it is “who they are.” Supposedly no one of any intelligence would question this belief, but does God’s truth as revealed in the Bible contradict this widely held assumption?  The God of our faith is the Sovereign Creator of all.  Would he create someone who is born with a sin which defines who he is and for which there is no redemption?  Chapter 9 of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) entitled “Free Will” provides a biblical perspective which can shed some much-needed light on questions about sexual identity and sexual sin.
WCF 9.1 starts out by declaring a simple and vitally important truth: “God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.” Made in His image, every individual has the power of self-decision, and the choices we make are never “forced” or “determined.”  Outside forces might and often do influence our choices, but we are reminded again and again in Scripture that we will be held personally accountable before God for the choices we make (Romans 1:20,32; John 15:22).
WCF 9.2 addresses the condition of man in this regard before the Fall, in what can be called man’s “state of innocency.”  In the Garden before the Fall, humans had both the “freedom and the power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God.”  Adam was fully capable of doing good “yet mutably, so that he might fall from it.”  And of course, that’s exactly what he did.  Adam had both the liberty and the ability to choose not to eat the forbidden fruit, but he failed the test with disastrous consequences for all his progeny.
WCF 9.3 addresses the condition of man after the Fall, now having “lost all ability to will any spiritual good.”  Fallen man apart from Christ is still at liberty to do good, but because of his rebellion, he has lost the ability and the desire to choose to do good.  Such a man “being altogether averse from that good and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself or to prepare himself thereunto.”  No outside force makes him do evil and he retains his free will after the Fall, but he freely chooses to do evil because by nature he wants to do evil. “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death (James 1:13-15; see also Romans 8:5-8).
Can man in his fallen condition blame someone else, even his Creator, for his moral failures?  God declares again and again in Scripture that when we come before Him in judgment, we will have no excuse for our sin (Romans 1:20). Where does that leave you and me along with Adam and Eve after the Fall?  We are hopeless, helpless, in need of deliverance, desperately in need of a Savior, with no ability to “convert ourselves or to prepare ourselves thereunto.”
WCF 9.4 opens the door to the good news: “When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin.”  The yoke is broken and the slave to sin is set free by grace and this grace “enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good.”  In Christ, we regain our ability both to want to do good and then to act upon our desires and actually to do what is “good and pleasing to God.”  In Christ, we have been delivered from the domain of darkness, the oppressive rule and reign of Satan, and we are a “new man” under a new ruler in the Kingdom of Christ. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17). From the moment of rebirth, we learn to hate the sin we once loved, and our former desire to sin is replaced by a new deep-seated desire to do only what is pleasing to our Lord and God.
But alas, are we still able to choose to sin after salvation?  “… by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.” Romans 7 and Galatians 5 describe us as a conflicted people, free to do good, but also free to do evil, but most importantly with a restored ABILITY and DESIRE to do good.  We are no longer slaves to sin, but sin still indwells us, often deceiving us and tempting us to sin. By grace and with the help of the Holy Spirit we actually have the ability NOT to sin, and yet, we often choose to sin and thereby grieve the Spirit.  Of course, if our faith is genuine, we will never persevere in sin but will always return to Christ in repentance.
So, how does the biblical doctrine of “Free Will” address the popular notions of “gay Christianity” or what has been called Side B or Revoice theology?  This false teaching claims that one’s sexual orientation (a Freudian concept not a biblical one) is present at birth and is unchangeable. Indeed, this teaching considers it abusive to attempt to turn a redeemed sinner from his perverse and abominable desires to right, good, natural and God-honoring sexual desires.
But WCF 9 teaches us that when we come to Christ in faith and repentance, he fundamentally changes us into a “new man.”  We are a “new creation” and actually capable of real change through the ministry of the Spirit.  Thus, Paul can say with respect to past sinful life patterns, “…such were some of you, but you were washed, you were sanctified….” (1 Co 6:11). Total change is of course never fully realized in this life, but through the grace of progressive sanctification, the Holy Spirit is always at work to deliver us from remaining sin.  “For freedom Christ has set us free.  Stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (Galatians 5:1).
Some will say that they never chose their orientation, and certainly none of us can always recall when, how and why we have chosen to sin or were enslaved to a sin.  More often than not, we wake up to our sin when we are suffering the consequences of it.  But this doesn’t change the biblical truth that we did in fact make a choice to sin, whether we were conscious of it at the time or not. Our inability to recall our decision to sin, does not change the fact that each of us has made that choice again and again.
The last word on “Free Will” is the best! WCF 9-5 gives us peek at the glorious future which awaits all who persevere in Christ to the end: “The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.”  When we enter into the glory to come, we will be perfectly and unchangeably free and able to do good and good alone. This is almost too good to be true for the child of God who is weary from war with his sin.  Imagine life without indwelling sin, when in our final state we will not only not want to sin, but we will not be able to sin. “We shall be like him because we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2).  What a glory to come!!
John I. Maynard is a Ruling Elder of St. Paul’s Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Orlando, Fla.
Related Posts:

The crisis in the world over father-absence and mother-absence seems to be getting worse – certainly in the West. More and more wounded children simply grow up to become wounded, angry, dysfunctional and embittered adults. They desperately long to know and experience real love and acceptance. While most humans – including too many parents even – will let us down in this regard, God never will fail us. His love is indeed eternal. 

I should begin by stating that I do not have the television on all the time – although some of you might think so. But often an article of mine on this site will be inspired by some recent TV viewing. That is the case with this piece. Because the wheels in my head are always turning, and lateral thinking seems to predominate, I often find things in film or TV that I can write about, and even churn out devotional pieces on.
So let me mention just two things I recently saw – or at least parts of, and then tie them into a biblical message. The first involved seeing part of the 2019 film A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood about the famous American children’s television presenter, TV presenter Fred Rogers (1928-2003).
I had actually seen this movie with my wife five years ago at the cinema when it first came out. I wrote up my impressions of the film back then: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2020/01/29/hollywood-christianity-and-mr-rogers/
In that piece I focussed more on the Christian faith of Rogers, and how the film downplayed that. But seeing it again just days ago, with my wife now gone, I have had a different and more emotional response to the film. In it, Lloyd, a cynical and jaded journalist, is sent to write a story about Rogers. He at first was going to do a hatchet job on him, but as he got to know him, all that changed.
Lloyd was estranged from his dad, who was unfaithful while his mother struggled with and died from cancer. His hatred of his dad consumed him and coloured his life. But in the film Rogers befriends Lloyd, and seeks to have him deal with the past, and offer some forgiveness, and so on.
In the end he does. But the point is, like millions of people worldwide, a bad or non-existent relationship with a father can have a lifelong negative impact on folks. Being unable to deal with that can lead to all sorts of problems, from drug abuse, gang involvement, to suicide. Rogers, the Presbyterian pastor, was able to point Lloyd in the right direction, and to help him deal with the hole in his soul.
The second thing I saw – just last night – was part of the 2018 documentary, “Robin Williams: Come Inside My Mind.” We all know about the American comedian and actor Robin Williams (1951-2014). He was married three times, dealt with drug and alcohol issues, and was quite depressed later in life. He took his own life at age 63.
One thing the doco often made clear was that while he was a very quiet person in his personal world, he came to life on stage, and seemed to live for the attention and applause of the audience. That was what drove him and energised him. Especially as a stand-up comic, he craved the approval and praise of the audience as they roared in laughter at his jokes, improvisation and high-octane performances.
On a side note, British comedian Eric Idle said of Williams in the doco, he had “a restless mind”. When I heard that I thought that seems to nicely describe my mind. It never seems to stop or slow down. Non-stop thoughts bounce around in my head which in part explains why I find it so hard to fall to sleep easily. Often there are one or two hours of tossing and turning – and hard-core thinking – before I finally fall asleep. But I digress.
So if Williams was so successful, so loved worldwide, and so wealthy, why did he take his own life? Like Lloyd, he had his own inner demons to deal with it seems. We ALL need and want the approval and affirmation of others. That is natural. But above all, we need the approval and love of God in order to really thrive and flourish.
Spiritual Takeout
The sad truth is, countless millions of people are starved of love and acceptance. That deep need is not being met, so all sorts of false routes are taken to fix it. For Lloyd, drink, anger and bitterness were ways in which he sought to cope. For Williams, it was feeling accepted and loved by the audience.
As I said, there is a place for human affirmation, acceptance and avowal. We all need that, and we should expect to find that in the home at the very least.
Read More
Related Posts: