A Christmas Perspective on “Gender-Affirming Health Care”
Dec 2, 2022 by David Fowler
Matt Wash exposed the fact that at least one major hospital in Tennessee is providing “gender affirming care” to minors, i.e., mutilating healthy parts of a child’s body, to change their appearance and ostensibly to address incongruities between their subjective mental states and objective physical realities. It dawned on me that how one views Christmas—whether it’s about Santa coming to town or the Son of God coming to Bethlehem—determines how one should think about such care.
Christmas is the Christian celebration of the second person of the Triune God, the Son of God, being conjoined to the nature given by God to human beings at creation. It is called the Incarnation.
If there is no universal, given human nature, i.e., a fundamental essence to our being apart from and beyond mere physiological and morphological considerations, the Incarnation is meaningless. There is still nothing that could be common between the human Jesus and any other human being, on the one hand, and, on the other, any human being and God whereby and wherein any of us could share in or be joined to Jesus for the sake of his providing the holiness we need to stand in judgment before a Holy God.
Absent these two things—a universal, given human nature (essence) and the Incarnation—the Christ of Christmas is irrelevant. That leaves Christmas to Santa who I will come to momentarily.
If the Incarnation is true, there must be a universal, given human nature (essence), which no one can change; it’s a given. And given with that nature is another given from God, a distinction between man and woman. Givens from God cannot be changed by human beings.
Therefore, an Incarnational view of Christmas says gender affirming care is that which seeks to prevent and remedy harms to the reproductive organs of a man and woman, not destroy them. Gender affirming care seeks to reconcile the subjective mental state to the objective physical reality, not the other way round.
If the incarnation is not true, and Santa is substituted for Jesus as the reason for the season, there is no one from whom any universal, given nature could come. We are completely free.
Therefore, each of us can take to ourselves a Santa-sized gift that allows to determine individually what our “nature” is, though the word nature is now reduced to only physical “stuff.” Doctors can manipulate stuff, and Santa cannot tell them not to.
In this version of Christmas, gender becomes a construct subject only to human imagination and what society will put up with. Gender affirming care is that which bends to human imagination, subject only to what Doctors have the skills to do.
Santa sounds pretty good to many because they get to play God. But a funny thing happens when the Santa model of gender-affirming care is embraced: There are only two forms in which morphological changes come—one can look outwardly like a man or like a woman.
No doctor believes that there is some choice a patient can make that “transcends” the male and female binary. No doctor believes that any procedure can change our nature from human to non-human.
Even those who think their doctor has transitioned them sue to use bathrooms and locker room designated man and woman. They do not demand a facility that transcends those two binary choices, but complain that providing them a third option violates their choice of genders. Same is true when it comes to sporting events.
Claiming to be non-binary, the newest thing, concedes there is a binary which can only be understood in relation to a binary.
Binary just can’t be abolished, because the final and ultimate binary relation is resident in the difference between the Creator and the created, and we cannot abolish it. God will not allow His creation to escape its Maker.
When those who think the Incarnation makes no sense begin to realize that denial of any given, universal human essence leads to consequences that make no common sense, they may realize the Incarnation is logically possible. There may not have been an Incarnation, but either it is not illogical or “gender” as a human construct shaped by doctors and pharmaceutical companies is logical.
God has given us a binary choice between His version of Christmas and the imaginary one of Santa. Pick the gift you want for Christmas—God’s Son or Santa’s autonomy—just don’t complain about how the one from Santa works out.
David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006.
If Christmas Is About the Incarnation
Christmas is the Christian celebration of the second person of the Triune God, the Son of God, being conjoined to the nature given by God to human beings at creation. It is called the Incarnation.
If there is no universal, given human nature, i.e., a fundamental essence to our being apart from and beyond mere physiological and morphological considerations, the Incarnation is meaningless. There is still nothing that could be common between the human Jesus and any other human being, on the one hand, and, on the other, any human being and God whereby and wherein any of us could share in or be joined to Jesus for the sake of his providing the holiness we need to stand in judgment before a Holy God.
Absent these two things—a universal, given human nature (essence) and the Incarnation—the Christ of Christmas is irrelevant. That leaves Christmas to Santa who I will come to momentarily.
What’s the Relevance of the Incarnation to “Gender Affirming Care”?
If the Incarnation is true, there must be a universal, given human nature (essence), which no one can change; it’s a given. And given with that nature is another given from God, a distinction between man and woman. Givens from God cannot be changed by human beings.
Therefore, an Incarnational view of Christmas says gender affirming care is that which seeks to prevent and remedy harms to the reproductive organs of a man and woman, not destroy them. Gender affirming care seeks to reconcile the subjective mental state to the objective physical reality, not the other way round.
If Christmas Is About Santa
If the incarnation is not true, and Santa is substituted for Jesus as the reason for the season, there is no one from whom any universal, given nature could come. We are completely free.
Therefore, each of us can take to ourselves a Santa-sized gift that allows to determine individually what our “nature” is, though the word nature is now reduced to only physical “stuff.” Doctors can manipulate stuff, and Santa cannot tell them not to.
In this version of Christmas, gender becomes a construct subject only to human imagination and what society will put up with. Gender affirming care is that which bends to human imagination, subject only to what Doctors have the skills to do.
Santa and His Doctor Helpers Have a God-Given Problem
Santa sounds pretty good to many because they get to play God. But a funny thing happens when the Santa model of gender-affirming care is embraced: There are only two forms in which morphological changes come—one can look outwardly like a man or like a woman.
No doctor believes that there is some choice a patient can make that “transcends” the male and female binary. No doctor believes that any procedure can change our nature from human to non-human.
Even those who think their doctor has transitioned them sue to use bathrooms and locker room designated man and woman. They do not demand a facility that transcends those two binary choices, but complain that providing them a third option violates their choice of genders. Same is true when it comes to sporting events.
Claiming to be non-binary, the newest thing, concedes there is a binary which can only be understood in relation to a binary.
Binary just can’t be abolished, because the final and ultimate binary relation is resident in the difference between the Creator and the created, and we cannot abolish it. God will not allow His creation to escape its Maker.
Don’t Like the Santa Christmas Consequences?
When those who think the Incarnation makes no sense begin to realize that denial of any given, universal human essence leads to consequences that make no common sense, they may realize the Incarnation is logically possible. There may not have been an Incarnation, but either it is not illogical or “gender” as a human construct shaped by doctors and pharmaceutical companies is logical.
God has given us a binary choice between His version of Christmas and the imaginary one of Santa. Pick the gift you want for Christmas—God’s Son or Santa’s autonomy—just don’t complain about how the one from Santa works out.
David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006.
