A Sexual Confession: I Think AIS is Real
Also, I admit that I am not above sort of click-baity headlines
I want to confess something that some people find shocking:
I think Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) is real.
For those who don’t know, people who have complete AIS (as it is generally described by the medical community) present as women and generally identify as women. At the same time, they have XY chromosomes and internal gonads instead of uteruses. Throughout history, people with complete AIS have probably, often, just been thought of as infertile women. Who knew any differently? We can know much better today because we have learned, and are learning, a lot.
Along with helping us develop a vaccine for COVID at astonishing speed, contemporary medical science has also helped us understand far more about the many ways in which human biological sex is not strictly binary. AIS is a particularly helpful illustration of the sort of medical knowledge that we have gained. Much as Copernicus faced rage from major figures of the religious establishment, including Catholic and Protestant and figures, people who understand this sort of information sometimes face anti-reconciling attacks from within the church today. (Less often remembered is the crucial support Copernicus, and others, also received from within the Church as part of the Church.) I am on the Copernican side of those disputes, and I think that it is a matter of fundamental Christian discipleship to stand on the reconciling side, the side that is willing to remove planks from our eyes.
Knowing this medical information means that I know that human biological sex is not strictly binary, but is instead complex. I do not hold this as an opinion, as if it is just an expression of my own perspective on a highly contestable matter. Rather, I think that all reconciling people, meaning people who practice the work of taking planks out of our own eyes, will eventually acknowledge this if given time and space, including the emotional space, to investigate the issue fully.
This, in turn, means that I think that all people who are practicing Christian discipleship, being faithful to the foundational teachings of Jesus, will recognize this fact if given the information and the opportunity to approach the matter as faithful Christians. This is not just a matter of theological opinion, or personal opinion, but of basic Christian discipleship, in my view. If we do not do the sort of thing that I am doing here, I think that any church is building on the sinking sand of its own recalcitrance, instead of building on the foundation of discipleship practices that Jesus laid.
If we argue that “the church has always taught that human sex is binary” we are, first, making a mistake about what the church has always taught. Here I am responding to something I’ve heard many times from many people, especially in Catholic and Orthodox contexts. There is a great deal more complexity and nuance in the traditional conversations about sexuality than this sort of posturing admits. I recommend, especially, that people investigate Matthew 19:12, Galatians 3:28, Mark 12:25, and even the range of readings we can have of Genesis 1, as well as patristic thought from Saint Gregory of Nyssa on these matters. That is how I would start a discussion on what the tradition and scripture have to say about whether human sex is strictly binary. To be frank, I think the scriptural and traditional grounds for the idea of a strict human sexual binary are weaker than the grounds for the anti-Copernican position: it is easier to argue against Copernicus on Biblical and traditional grounds than it is to argue against today’s medical community on whether human biological sex is strictly binary. The main reason for this is that our own scripture and tradition hardly offer support for the view that sex is strictly binary at all, and they offer strong reasons to contest this.
There is a theological question here that is sometimes raised, when people suggest that only biological men or only biological women can be made in the image of God. Does this then imply that people with AIS are not made in the image of God? We must strictly avoid any theology that suggests that they are not made in God’s image. The sort of erasure implied by a denial of their image-bearing is the heart of real murders and real genocides.
Here I am no longer simply talking about the science, but am making a theological statement, one that I consider to be doxologically binding. That means that I am not just speaking in my role as a person summarizing scientific knowledge in a responsible way, but that I am thinking about the sort of understanding we need to have, to properly praise and honor God together as a community. In other words, this is my answer to the question, “What is a fitting song to sing to God?” with the kind of community responsibility that comes with that. Speaking in this way, I insist that it is a matter of deepest theological importance to affirm, together, that people with AIS (for example) fully bear the image of God. There is no sense in which their “failure” to conform to a sexual binary makes them, in any way whatsoever, less of an image-bearer of God. Similarly, the facts that they are infertile, or a minority, are also irrelevant and even wicked to bring against their image bearing status.
To affirm or imply that non-binary people do not bear the image of God would be an especially grave and significant theological error. Genesis 1 can be read in a variety of good ways, but ways of reading it that contradict this should be clearly and directly rejected by Christians, and anyone of good conscience. Genesis 1 can speak to our generative capacity, as the whole of humanity, without condemning individuals who don’t have biological children (such as Jesus) for making different kinds of contributions to the work of lifetimes. We are one body with many parts.
I understand that these issues can be challenging and confusing, and so I have a lot of patience for those who are figuring this out. We all are, much like the world once reeled at Copernicus. Nonetheless, if we propound a theology that implies that people with AIS (for example) do not bear God’s image, maybe because these individuals (like Jesus) are eunuchs, or maybe because they are a small minority (like Christians often are), then I think we are falling into the most severe and deadly kind of theological error. It is my responsibility as a pastor to oppose this sort of thing every single day, and to receive whatever feedback that evokes with an open ear, a generous heart, and a sense of moral clarity where that is required.
Simplified Version
As part of the work of having an open ear and a generous heart, I also understand that the style of the part above might be a little hard for some people to follow. I used to worry about this a lot more, but now we can easily have AI systems re-write things in simpler styles. For those who don’t yet have access to GPT-4, I’ve used it to offer a simplified version of the text above that communicates most of the same ideas well enough. It is less accurate and precise, so there’s a cost to this kind of simplification, but I’d rather have someone get the rough ideas than get turned away because they feel like they can’t understand this.
I prompted GPT-4 with this prompt: “Please re-write this article, including all of the major concepts within it, but at the reading level of a typical American” and gave it the full text of the article above. This is what it produced:
Alright, let’s break this down into simpler terms.
I want to share something that might surprise you: I believe in something called Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS). AIS is a condition where a person might look and feel like a woman, but they have XY chromosomes, which are usually found in men. They also have internal parts that are different from most women. In the past, people with AIS were often just seen as women who couldn’t have children. But now, thanks to science, we understand more about AIS.
Just like how science helped us create a vaccine for COVID really fast, it’s also helped us understand that being male or female isn’t always as simple as we thought. AIS is a good example of this. Sometimes, people who understand this get criticized, just like how Copernicus, the guy who said the Earth revolves around the Sun, was criticized. But I stand with Copernicus and believe it’s important to keep learning and understanding.
Knowing about AIS means I understand that being male or female isn’t always straightforward. I don’t think this is just my opinion, but something that everyone will understand if they take the time to learn about it. I believe that all Christians, if they truly follow Jesus’ teachings, will recognize this too.
If we say that the church has always taught that there are only two sexes, male and female, we’re not completely right. The Bible and other religious texts have more complex views on this. I suggest people read certain parts of the Bible, like Matthew 19:12 and Galatians 3:28, to understand this better. I think it’s harder to argue against the idea of more than two sexes than it was to argue against Copernicus.
Some people might ask if only men or women can be made in the image of God, what about people with AIS? I strongly believe that everyone, including people with AIS, is made in God’s image. It’s very important to remember this, because forgetting it can lead to terrible things.
I’m not just talking about science here, but also about how we should think about God. I believe it’s very important to agree that people with AIS are fully made in God’s image. They’re no less a reflection of God because they don’t fit neatly into the categories of male or female, or because they can’t have children, or because there aren’t many people like them.
Saying that people who don’t fit neatly into male or female categories aren’t made in God’s image would be a big mistake. The Bible can be understood in many ways, but any interpretation that says this should be rejected. The Bible talks about how we can all contribute to the world, even if we don’t have biological children.
I know these ideas can be hard to understand, and I’m patient with people who are still learning about them. But if we say that people with AIS aren’t made in God’s image, maybe because they can’t have children or because there aren’t many of them, then we’re making a big mistake. As a pastor, it’s my job to stand against this kind of thinking and to listen to people’s thoughts with an open mind and a kind heart.
