I Am Not Anyone's Complement

CN: brief mention of transphobia

Sometimes I see people write things like “God made men and women in unique and complementary roles.”

This is usually in the context of some broader debate, about female pastors or submission, or same-sex marriage, so they write it like it's self-evident, as if that argument itself is a piece of evidence in their favor, and move on.

But I'm a scientist, and I like evidence. This statement isn't self-evident, and I'm pretty sure it's not even true.

Christianity and Asexuality

 Content note: this post discusses homophobic and acephobic attitudes

Recently, I've been thinking about the intersection of asexuality and Christianity. I saw a comment on Rachel Held Evans' blog post “If My Son or Daughter Were Gay,” from a mother asking for advice because her daughter had just come out as asexual. She noted that while homosexuality was frequently discussed on the blog (Rachel is a strong proponent of what I might call a progressive Christian attitude towards the LGBT* community, and often hosts discussion), asexuality had never been discussed.

Asexuality is in an odd place, compared to the other minority sexual orientations, when it comes to Christianity. Some religiously conservative Christians tolerate or even applaud asexuality while condemning all other non-heterosexual orientations. In that way, asexuality escapes the vitriol to which the LGBT* community is subjected*. But this leniency is often based out of a misunderstanding of asexuality-- and it's by no means universal. I know of other aces who've been told by Christians (and others) that their asexuality is sinful, or even that they're going to hell for it.

The lack of problem with the childfree life

Maybe I shouldn't be taking the bait at all, but this post by Kathleen Nielsen at the Gospel Coalition is so bad that I'm doing it anyway.

Ms. Nielsen is deeply concerned that people are choosing not to have children, and she offers three reasons why this choice is very, very selfish:

• children are a gift from God, so everybody should have them
• we need the mercy of God, so we should have children so there can be more Christians
• there won't be any having-of-children in heaven, so we need to have children now so we can share the Gospel with them

It may strike you, as it struck me, that these arguments are not very sensible. I can give someone a bicycle as a gift, but that does not mean I should give someone ten bicycles, or that I should give a bicycle to someone who has expressed a disinterest in bicycling. That would just make me a jerk.

The second two points are not even coherent enough to address. The world is not running out of people. If we really want to give children "labor and care," as Ms. Nielsen suggests-- and as I agree-- then we should start with the ones who are already here, like the 29,000 children under five who die each day from mostly preventable causes, like a lack of clean water or a disease for which these is a vaccine. There are plenty of people in this world already who are in need of the selfless love to which Christians are called. We do not need to make new people in order to find someone in need of love and mercy.

On a more sinister note, Ms. Nielsen writes like she has been appointed to judge the inner thoughts of human beings and decide who is "God's people" and who is not. This is not a role that any human can fill. We're supposed to leave that to God. When she writes

 The most basic problem is that the childfree life does not take God into account—God the Creator and giver of all gifts, including the gift of life.

she is pretending to know the relationship between God and another human being based solely on that person's attitude towards having children. It doesn't work like that. Without being psychic, you cannot determine to what extent someone takes God into account in their lives. And again, when she writes

Children are God's merciful means of growing his redeemed people, generation after generation, in all the nations of the world. They are infinitely worthy of labor and care—not only of the women who bear them but of all God's people, not one of whom lives childfree.

she is either misunderstanding what it means to be childfree, or implying that anyone who, by choice, is not a parent, is not Christian. Of course childfree people still contribute to the lives of the children around them. Many people cite this as a reason for being childfree, that they believe they can make more of a positive impact on the world by devoting their energies to something besides child-rearing. I am not any less childfree if I tutor elementary school kids, volunteer to babysit for a single parent, or dote on my little cousins and shower them with love and affection.

The other possible interpretation, that someone who is childfree is therefore not a Christian, is worse. That determination is not up to her. You cannot say that someone isn't Christian because they've chosen not to become a parent. The Bible does not say, anywhere, "By your nuclear family you shall be saved." Really. I promise.

Wings, Legs, and Feet, Oh My!

I noticed something interesting in the book of Leviticus last night. Here is Leviticus 11:20-23
as it appears in the New Revised Standard Version:

²⁰All winged insects that walk upon all fours are detestable to you. ²¹But among the winged insects that walk on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to leap on the ground. ²²Of them you may eat: the locust according to its kind, the bald locust according to its kind, the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. ²³But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you.

There are no winged insects that "walk upon all fours." Insects, by definition, have six legs. The author may not have been using our modern scientific definition of "insects" (and probably wasn't), but there are no similar creepy-crawly things that have four legs either. Spiders and scorpions have eight. Centipedes, millipedes, and isopods have more.

Some people attempt to address this apparent contradiction between the Bible and nature by claiming that the back legs of the locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers don't count as legs, because they're used for leaping, not walking. But I think this misses the point. If these insects are exempt because they jump with their back legs and walk with their front two legs, what about all the insects that don't jump? What about cockroaches? (Yes, some cockroaches can fly. I'm sorry to break this to you if you didn't already know.)

If one defines "winged insects that walk upon all fours" as "winged insects that walk upon all fours in the sense that they use their back legs for jumping," then the "winged insects that walk upon all fours" are the same as "those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to leap on the ground." It's like defining fruit as apples, pears, and cherries, and then saying, "You can't eat any fruit, except apples, pears, and cherries."

Furthermore, and perhaps this is a translation issue, but note the bit about "those that have jointed legs above their feet." In this case, the back legs are being included in the feet tally. But verse 23 specifically says, "all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you" (emphasis mine). Even if one argues that the back legs of jumping insects shouldn't be counted as legs because they're used for jumping, their feet are still feet.

Why Young People are leaving the church

Dear church,

You don't get it.

You wring your hands and ask why Young People are leaving the church, and when we try to tell you, you fire us.  When we come forward with our honest questions, you tell us that the problem is we're having too much sex and it's making us doubt. 

The problem is that a lot of the time, you don't actually want to know why Young People are leaving. What you're really asking is, how can we convince Young People to stay without changing our bigotry, our intolerance, our sexism, our corruption, our hypocrisy, our terrible stewardship, and our grossly misplaced priorities? How can we convince Young People to stay without taking the logs out of our eyes? And when we tell you, you can't, you throw your hands up and decry our lack of morals.

Don't get me wrong: my generation is also bigoted, intolerant, sexist, corrupt, and hypocritical. But the institution that's supposed to model a better way for us is failing us.

In my lifetime, the one single issue that has motivated the church to its greatest heights of passion and activity has been banning same-sex marriage. It has not been ending poverty, or ending world hunger, or ending systematic injustice. You may think I'm wrong. I'm open to reasonable evidence. Show me the ballot initiatives to amend state constitutions to prohibit discrimination on any grounds. Show me the enormous rallies against child hunger. Show me the presidential candidates who give their position statements on poverty as a bellwether of their faith. Show me the denominations publicly chastising other denominations for not doing enough to feed the hungry. Show me the churches splitting away from their own denominations because those denominations aren't taking a firm enough stance against injustice.

You may now be saying, “But protecting the sanctity of marriage is important!” I am not going to argue with you about what the sanctity of marriage is or how it is best protected. I will simply ask, is preventing same-sex marriage more important than ending world hunger, human trafficking, slavery, sexual assault and rape, systemic poverty, economic exploitation, genocide, and our systematic degradation of God's creation? Because the church is acting like it is.

And if it is, then I don't want to be a part of your church.

I am not leaving the Church. But I am leaving your church. I am a Young Person, and I have told you why.

Will you listen?

Asexuality: Classification and Characterization

Title: Asexuality: Classification and Characterization

Author(s): Nicole Prause, Cynthia A. Graham

Citation: Archives of Sexual Behavior (2007), volume 36, pp. 341-356

Abstract: The term “asexual” has been defined in many different ways and asexuality has received very little research attention. In a small qualitative study (N = 4), individuals who self-identified as asexual were interviewed to help formulate hypotheses for a larger study. The second larger study was an online survey drawn from a convenience sample designed to better characterize asexuality and to test predictors of asexual identity. A convenience sample of 1,146 individuals (N = 41 self-identified asexual) completed online questionnaires assessing sexual history, sexual inhibition and excitation, sexual desire, and an open-response questionnaire concerning asexual identity. Asexuals reported significantly less desire for sex with a partner, lower sexual arousability, and lower sexual excitation but did not differ consistently from non-asexuals in their sexual inhibition scores or their desire to masturbate. Content analyses supported the idea that low sexual desire is the primary feature predicting asexual identity.

Why I love my menstrual cup

 Content note: obviously, this post talks about menstruation

One thing I did for environmental reasons that I ended up loving for its practicality and ease of use was buy and use a menstrual cup. For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, a menstrual cup is a reusable, bell-shaped vessel about two inches long (this can vary), usually made out of rubber or silicone, that is inserted into the vagina, creates a “seal” with the vaginal wall up near the cervix, and catches menstrual blood as it comes out of the uterus. They serve as a replacement for pads and tampons.

For those of you who do know what I'm talking about and want more details, the kind I bought was a silicone DivaCup, the smaller size for nulliparous women. When I bought mine (I think I was a freshman in college, to give you an idea) there weren't nearly so many kinds as there are now. This morning I went to menstrual_cups, a LiveJournal community dedicated to the subject, and counted about twenty kinds now listed in the sidebar, only half of which I recognized. I would imagine that the proliferation of kinds makes it easier to find something for almost any body and comfort preferences, but also that having so many options makes it harder to choose.

Growing up Asexual in Christian Purity Culture

 Growing up asexual in Christian purity culture was weird, though I didn't realize it at the time.

I wasn't immersed in the strictest of it. I never took a purity pledge or went to a purity ball. I certainly was never expected to “court” rather than date. (I didn't date much, but that's a story for another time.) I knew, though, that my parents and the members of my church expected that I wouldn't have sex until I were married, and that I was supposed to regard premarital sex as sinful. There were a lot of other messages floating around about how I had to be prepared to resist this strong temptation, and I was. I was so prepared.

I was not, however, tempted.

I think I felt slightly smug, or at least accomplished, that “staying pure” was so easy for me. I didn't understand how anyone could possibly have a problem with it. I extrapolated from my not wanting sex or feeling attraction to anyone, to assuming that none of my peers felt attraction to anyone, either. I thought that they were having sex because of peer pressure. I thought that I was able to resist the temptation I was supposed to feel because I was so good at standing up to peer pressure. I probably felt a little superior. I made it to eighteen and was still expecting that at some point in the future, I would reach a natural age to “want” sex.

Thankfully, I grew out of the judging. I never grew out of not wanting sex. I was probably twenty before I started to realize that sex just wasn't my particular temptation, and it took more time after that to realize that I was, in fact, asexual. I'm not sure, but I think the messages I received from my Christian subculture, that sexual temptation was inevitable and I needed to be prepared to resist it, delayed my realization that there was something inherently different about me. Because sexual attraction was presented as universal, along with the temptation to have sex, I thought for years that I would eventually experience it. On one hand, I got off much easier than some of my peers-- I had no internal battle between what my church told me was right and what I wanted to do. On the other hand, the messages I got kept me in the dark about my own sexual orientation for a long time.

I didn't escape damage from purity culture entirely. Like many other people, I was convinced that masturbation was a terrible sexual sin, and it took me a long time to get over that. But in some way, because I simply had no desire or reason whatsoever to go against its demands, being asexual gave me a pass from some of the worst experiences of purity culture. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about that.

The Value of Joan Watson

(spoilers through episode 16, "Details")

When the premise of CBS's "Elementary" was revealed, and we learned that Watson's character would be female, I and many other people were concerned about how it would read to have a woman in a role that's often been portrayed as "lesser" than Holmes in many ways. In both the Guy Ritchie movies and the BBC Sherlock TV series, for example, Watson is a long-suffering friend who experiences considerable inconvenience and embarrassment serving the whims of a domineering Holmes. It would have been unpleasant to see a female Watson placed into this situation, another in a long line of women on TV catering to great men. That this Watson had already been explicitly portrayed as a caretaker of Holmes added to my concern.

However, "Elementary" pleasantly surprised me, and continued to far exceed my expectations. Lucy Liu's Joan Watson and Jonny Lee Miller's Sherlock Holmes have a much less dysfunctional dynamic than any other modern adaptation I have seen, and this Watson makes it clear exactly how far she will accept Holmes's less courteous behaviors. The show portrays Joan Watson as a valued and valuable character, and I will examine three of the ways in which it does so.

Joan Watson is a caretaker, a stereotypically female role. We know that caretaking work, for example, of children, the elderly, or the ill, is often un- or undervalued, and un- or underpaid. Women are often expected to fulfill this caretaking work in addition to their careers, and absorb any financial penalty; when caretaking work is a career, as in teaching at the pre-college level, it often pays terribly. Watson's caretaker role, though, is different. She's paid for it, and it's implied that she's paid a lot. The work that she does as a caretaker is portrayed as valuable because we can, literally, put a value on it.

Holmes also tells Watson that she and her work are valuable. Sometimes it's in a backhanded way, as when he praises her to her family and then pretends he didn't mean any of it. Sometimes it's with great sincerity, as in the scene where he asks her to stay; he doesn't praise her here, but what she does is so important to him that he asks her to become his partner. By the 16th episode, Holmes, who in the first episodes consistently denigrated Watson's work, has come to value her and her work so highly that he is willing to call her partner. Holmes values Watson, and he explicitly tells her so.

Finally, we see that not only is the show willing to put financial value on Watson's work, so is Holmes. He's willing to dig into his savings, which are finite, in order to pay her. This can be read in multiple ways, though, and the interpretation that he is paying her to stick around and be his friend is unpleasant. But we know that, for Watson, it's not about the money; she's been digging into her own savings in order to stay with Holmes. What about him, then? From his point of view, he could have done two things: he could have asked her to stay on permanently with him and not offered to pay her, leaving her without a source of income, essentially asking her to deplete her savings because working with him was worth the price. Or he could have offered to pay her, risking the implication that he was paying her to be his friend, but also implying that her time is valuable and her work is valuable. I think he made the right choice.

There are other, smaller clues. Gregson goes from not knowing how to introduce "Miss Watson," towards the beginning of the season, to referring to "his associates, Holmes and Watson" by the 16th episode. We see Watson's value as a surgeon when she saves the life of a girl who'd received the wrong diagnosis. During the scene where Holmes joins the Watson family for dinner, we see him go out of his way to make sure Watson's family understand the value of what she does.

There are a lot of reasons why I like "Elementary," but the way that Joan Watson is portrayed as an equal partner with Sherlock Holmes, respected and valued by him, by the other characters, and by the show itself, is a big one.