What do you think?
Rate this book
Sex Difference in Christian Theology: Male, Female, and intersex in the Image of God
"Charts a faithful theological middle course through complex sexual issues"How different are men and women? When does it matter to us -- or to God? Are male and female the only two options? In "Sex Difference in Christian Theology" Megan DeFranza explores such questions in light of the Bible, theology, and science.Many Christians, entrenched in culture wars over sexual ethics, are either ignorant of the existence of intersex persons or avoid the inherent challenge they bring to the assumption that everybody is born after the pattern of either Adam or Eve. DeFranza argues, from a conservative theological standpoint, that all people are made in the image of God -- male, female, and intersex -- and that we must listen to and learn from the voices of the intersexed among us.
327 pages, Paperback
First published April 15, 2015
32 people are currently reading
456 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
August 7, 2020
This book was not what I expected, but in a good way. I thought this was going to be a book talking about intersexed persons, maybe analyzing a bit of science and scripture to come to some conclusion on how the Church ought to relate to these too-often invisible persons. The book does include much of that, but it is so much more.
DeFranza does explain the many varieties of intersex persons and it is much, much deeper than I ever knew. This chapter is one that could educate many of us and I will return to if needed. She then goes into detail on the place of intersex persons throughout history. This includes discussing eunuchs in the Bible, we do appear to be a third sex apart from male and female, as well as discussing plenty of Greek philosophers and others. One big point here that she emphasizes that the existence of intersex persons has been spoken of for milliennia and that they were honored by Jesus in his words on eunuchs and have long found places of service and leadership in the church..
From this, she argues that the existence of intersex persons can force us to develop stronger theological anthropology. In this she hits on a similar point that James Brownson did in his book I just finished: are the creation stories of Adam and Eve emphasizing difference or similarity? Conservative theology argues the focus is on difference, thus marriage is a bringing together of difference. DeFranza, like Brownson, argues the emphasis is on similarity (“bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh”). Through this, she argues Adam and Eve are significant not as paradigms for how we all should be but as progenitors of a diverse human race which includes intersex persons. Thus, intersex is not something to be corrected in the eschaton.
As a side note, in this she touches on theology written from disabled perspectives and others. This reminds me of Grace Ji-Sun Kim’s book Intersectional Theology which calls the church to listen to more diverse voices than we have in the past. I was a bit hard on that book, as I love church history and think there has been more diversity than Kim gave credit for. Yet, there is still some truth that “theology” proper is differentiated from “black liberation” or “feminist” theology, as if only black people or women have bias. The reality is, we all have so many blind spots and...yeah, DeFranza has given me some books to read. That said, she is critical of some theologies she mentions and appears to remain more conservative and traditional then might be expected.
She works to decenter the masculinity of Jesus by decentering sex and gender in what it means to be human. It is a basic question: if Jesus is fully divine and fully human, the quintessential human, what does this mean for women? We all are called to become like Jesus. Must women become men? (Some in history have argued as much). DeFranza argues that male, female and intersex are all created in the image of God and called to become like Christ who is the image of the true human, not male perfection.
Overall, pretty brilliant work.
DeFranza does explain the many varieties of intersex persons and it is much, much deeper than I ever knew. This chapter is one that could educate many of us and I will return to if needed. She then goes into detail on the place of intersex persons throughout history. This includes discussing eunuchs in the Bible, we do appear to be a third sex apart from male and female, as well as discussing plenty of Greek philosophers and others. One big point here that she emphasizes that the existence of intersex persons has been spoken of for milliennia and that they were honored by Jesus in his words on eunuchs and have long found places of service and leadership in the church..
From this, she argues that the existence of intersex persons can force us to develop stronger theological anthropology. In this she hits on a similar point that James Brownson did in his book I just finished: are the creation stories of Adam and Eve emphasizing difference or similarity? Conservative theology argues the focus is on difference, thus marriage is a bringing together of difference. DeFranza, like Brownson, argues the emphasis is on similarity (“bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh”). Through this, she argues Adam and Eve are significant not as paradigms for how we all should be but as progenitors of a diverse human race which includes intersex persons. Thus, intersex is not something to be corrected in the eschaton.
As a side note, in this she touches on theology written from disabled perspectives and others. This reminds me of Grace Ji-Sun Kim’s book Intersectional Theology which calls the church to listen to more diverse voices than we have in the past. I was a bit hard on that book, as I love church history and think there has been more diversity than Kim gave credit for. Yet, there is still some truth that “theology” proper is differentiated from “black liberation” or “feminist” theology, as if only black people or women have bias. The reality is, we all have so many blind spots and...yeah, DeFranza has given me some books to read. That said, she is critical of some theologies she mentions and appears to remain more conservative and traditional then might be expected.
She works to decenter the masculinity of Jesus by decentering sex and gender in what it means to be human. It is a basic question: if Jesus is fully divine and fully human, the quintessential human, what does this mean for women? We all are called to become like Jesus. Must women become men? (Some in history have argued as much). DeFranza argues that male, female and intersex are all created in the image of God and called to become like Christ who is the image of the true human, not male perfection.
Overall, pretty brilliant work.
December 31, 2016
A fascinating, rigorous, valuable contribution to the discussion on gender in Christianity!
By focusing her research on intersex persons, an undeniable physical reality, the author seems to be taking a first baby step toward bridging the vast gap between traditional Christianity and queer theory. She writes from a Roman Catholic/Evangelical perspective, and from what I can tell from my RC perspective, she doesn't especially distort either. She preserves important nuances throughout, leaving her suggestions sometimes uncomfortable to the conservative theologian but never making an intellectual leap nor omitting an obvious objection.
I can't speak to the scholarship on the intersex or queer theory, although it seemed good. Her focused history fit with what I know, and she offered intriguing interpretations of both important biblical texts and common theological concepts (the latter is often lacking in what little queer theology I've encountered). She invokes theologians who argue for any number of positions, such that a reader looking to see the Church's sexual teachings changed will find sympathetic arguments, but so will the reader looking to retain those same teachings. This book is essential!
I will especially take away with me the reframing of the way in which we were created in the imago Dei: as essentially social creatures, just as the Trinity is inseparably communio. How truly lovely!
A small critique: I can't speak to her summation of Grenz's work, but her summary of JPII's theology of the body seemed more like a summary of a common inferior interpretation of TOB. It's still an important widespread position to be debunked, but I'm hard-pressed to think that JPII was really positing the marital bond as the prototypical relationship for ALL human relationships!
By focusing her research on intersex persons, an undeniable physical reality, the author seems to be taking a first baby step toward bridging the vast gap between traditional Christianity and queer theory. She writes from a Roman Catholic/Evangelical perspective, and from what I can tell from my RC perspective, she doesn't especially distort either. She preserves important nuances throughout, leaving her suggestions sometimes uncomfortable to the conservative theologian but never making an intellectual leap nor omitting an obvious objection.
I can't speak to the scholarship on the intersex or queer theory, although it seemed good. Her focused history fit with what I know, and she offered intriguing interpretations of both important biblical texts and common theological concepts (the latter is often lacking in what little queer theology I've encountered). She invokes theologians who argue for any number of positions, such that a reader looking to see the Church's sexual teachings changed will find sympathetic arguments, but so will the reader looking to retain those same teachings. This book is essential!
I will especially take away with me the reframing of the way in which we were created in the imago Dei: as essentially social creatures, just as the Trinity is inseparably communio. How truly lovely!
A small critique: I can't speak to her summation of Grenz's work, but her summary of JPII's theology of the body seemed more like a summary of a common inferior interpretation of TOB. It's still an important widespread position to be debunked, but I'm hard-pressed to think that JPII was really positing the marital bond as the prototypical relationship for ALL human relationships!
June 24, 2022
Defranza's book is well researched in postmodern theologians, while almost completely ignoring alternative theological proposals (the general exception is her engagement with Roman Catholic theology). She dismisses proposals that locate intersex as "result of the Fall" without ever interacting with them, and almost completely elides a discussion of how procreation relates to the (also dismissed) "binary" view of the human body. The result is a book that has assumed its conclusion (the phenomenon of intersex destroys the gender binary and must be accounted for in theology) without ever evaluating its soundness.
June 24, 2020
Very dry reading, thoroughly documented, a sort of history of interpreting biological sex, including intersex conditions. I'm not sure that all that Greek and Roman history was essential to the points that were being made. Or that even the various philosophic Christian writers of antiquity were pertinent. Sometimes, yes, they influenced modern thought. Oftentimes, they no longer do.
It makes you consider the sufferings of those whose lives are ambiguous, and compassion can be a good thing.
But, the author seems to have some moral compass apart from the Bible in determining the "shoulds" as to why this or that philosophy should be rejected, or altered as not quite right. I would rather that these topics should be drawn from the Bible in entirety.
And sometimes, it did touch on the Bible, but not always in context. An example of that is the Galatians 3:28 passage. It's referring, in context, to us all needing Jesus, regardless of who we are, not to the dissolution of the concept of genders.
There used to be a phrase, "We speak where the Bible speaks, and we are silent where the Bible is silent." There's good and bad in that phrase, because, of course, we can't absolutely hold to it.
But, it keeps us from wild, wide-ranging speculation on what Adam looked like before the rib was taken from him, or what we will look like in our resurrection bodies. Does the fact that we won't marry mean that we will all be eunuchs, of a sort? Or will we be resurrected with the biological sex we have now? And would eunuchs be "healed," or remain as they are?
Quite simply, we don't know. And I'm not sure it matters, or God would've told us. Whatever and however He decides to resurrect us will be good. I have a feeling we won't be paying much attention to our own bodies anyway. We will be awed and fascinated by being in God's presence, worshiping Him more than we are thinking about ourselves, although, of course, we may get around to self-contemplation, too.
Or speculating on the gender of a Spirit God. He refers to Himself as male, and really, that's all we need to know. Anything else is speculation.
The end of the book gets even more speculatively wild, with the trinity being compared to a gay bar, and each member in it having affairs with various others outside the trinity, such as Jesus with Mary Magdalene or even Lazarus.
The author bases her decisions on what would be welcoming and including (noble goals), but sometimes at the expense of what is true, and Christianity is supposed to hold both in balance.
The best takeaways that I had from this book was the quote, "Jesus was not afraid of eunuchs. He was not disgusted by them. He did not ridicule them, as did Jews, Romans and Greeks."
It was also an interesting quote from David Hester that "Jesus heals the blind, the paralyzed, the possessed, the fevered, the leprous, the hemorrhaging, even the dead, in every case restoring them to full societal membership. In the case of the eunuch, however, there is no implication whatsoever of 'illness' or social 'deformity' in need of restoration."
I can think of 3 possible reasons for that.
1) They could've been included in the crowds of people Jesus healed. It doesn't specifically mention whether He also cured people of cancer or heart disease or emphysema either.
2) They may not have wanted any change. Jesus asked the invalid on the mat at the pool if he wanted to be healed. If a eunuch's job depended on his condition, or if he were satisfied (or even happy) with his situation, he may not have wanted change.
3) It may have been good for the eunuch's soul in some fashion - this book alludes to this view - or some other greater good may have come from it.
It IS a very interesting observation, but I don't think we can make any definite conclusions from it, and it falls in the realm of the speculative.
I would also add that of course eunuchs are also "in God's image," not because they happen to fall into a particular biological sex, but because they are descendants of Adam and Eve, who were made in God's image. They are fully human, fully members of society.
There is also speculation about what it means to be made in God's image. Again, we aren't told, and there's probably a reason for that. God does not have to uncover all mysteries. It could've been all of the attributes those various philosophers mentioned (although some of them we share with animals, which makes me less inclined to include them), or it could be none of those attributes at all, and something else entirely. We believe that we are made in God's image, and try to live well in honor of that, but we don't have to understand it entirely before following Him.
The author claimed to write from a more traditional (Catholic/Evangelistic) background, but really, most of her beliefs on this particular topic were not traditional, good or bad. Catholics base the details of their faith on what the pope says, and the author disagreed with him. Of course, some individual Catholics may disagree as well, but primarily they follow him. And evangelicals form the basis of their faith on the Bible, which the author only touched on now and again, rather than doing a deep study or exegesis on. So, I don't think this book will reach either group very well.
It makes you consider the sufferings of those whose lives are ambiguous, and compassion can be a good thing.
But, the author seems to have some moral compass apart from the Bible in determining the "shoulds" as to why this or that philosophy should be rejected, or altered as not quite right. I would rather that these topics should be drawn from the Bible in entirety.
And sometimes, it did touch on the Bible, but not always in context. An example of that is the Galatians 3:28 passage. It's referring, in context, to us all needing Jesus, regardless of who we are, not to the dissolution of the concept of genders.
There used to be a phrase, "We speak where the Bible speaks, and we are silent where the Bible is silent." There's good and bad in that phrase, because, of course, we can't absolutely hold to it.
But, it keeps us from wild, wide-ranging speculation on what Adam looked like before the rib was taken from him, or what we will look like in our resurrection bodies. Does the fact that we won't marry mean that we will all be eunuchs, of a sort? Or will we be resurrected with the biological sex we have now? And would eunuchs be "healed," or remain as they are?
Quite simply, we don't know. And I'm not sure it matters, or God would've told us. Whatever and however He decides to resurrect us will be good. I have a feeling we won't be paying much attention to our own bodies anyway. We will be awed and fascinated by being in God's presence, worshiping Him more than we are thinking about ourselves, although, of course, we may get around to self-contemplation, too.
Or speculating on the gender of a Spirit God. He refers to Himself as male, and really, that's all we need to know. Anything else is speculation.
The end of the book gets even more speculatively wild, with the trinity being compared to a gay bar, and each member in it having affairs with various others outside the trinity, such as Jesus with Mary Magdalene or even Lazarus.
The author bases her decisions on what would be welcoming and including (noble goals), but sometimes at the expense of what is true, and Christianity is supposed to hold both in balance.
The best takeaways that I had from this book was the quote, "Jesus was not afraid of eunuchs. He was not disgusted by them. He did not ridicule them, as did Jews, Romans and Greeks."
It was also an interesting quote from David Hester that "Jesus heals the blind, the paralyzed, the possessed, the fevered, the leprous, the hemorrhaging, even the dead, in every case restoring them to full societal membership. In the case of the eunuch, however, there is no implication whatsoever of 'illness' or social 'deformity' in need of restoration."
I can think of 3 possible reasons for that.
1) They could've been included in the crowds of people Jesus healed. It doesn't specifically mention whether He also cured people of cancer or heart disease or emphysema either.
2) They may not have wanted any change. Jesus asked the invalid on the mat at the pool if he wanted to be healed. If a eunuch's job depended on his condition, or if he were satisfied (or even happy) with his situation, he may not have wanted change.
3) It may have been good for the eunuch's soul in some fashion - this book alludes to this view - or some other greater good may have come from it.
It IS a very interesting observation, but I don't think we can make any definite conclusions from it, and it falls in the realm of the speculative.
I would also add that of course eunuchs are also "in God's image," not because they happen to fall into a particular biological sex, but because they are descendants of Adam and Eve, who were made in God's image. They are fully human, fully members of society.
There is also speculation about what it means to be made in God's image. Again, we aren't told, and there's probably a reason for that. God does not have to uncover all mysteries. It could've been all of the attributes those various philosophers mentioned (although some of them we share with animals, which makes me less inclined to include them), or it could be none of those attributes at all, and something else entirely. We believe that we are made in God's image, and try to live well in honor of that, but we don't have to understand it entirely before following Him.
The author claimed to write from a more traditional (Catholic/Evangelistic) background, but really, most of her beliefs on this particular topic were not traditional, good or bad. Catholics base the details of their faith on what the pope says, and the author disagreed with him. Of course, some individual Catholics may disagree as well, but primarily they follow him. And evangelicals form the basis of their faith on the Bible, which the author only touched on now and again, rather than doing a deep study or exegesis on. So, I don't think this book will reach either group very well.
December 31, 2025
I went into this book knowing very little about intersex conditions, and I can say that I learned quite a bit about intersex individuals in modern society, the history of intersex individuals, and theological views related intersex topics over the course of human history.
For my own future notes:
Page 5 - “Physicians estimate that 1 in every 2,500-4,500 children is born intersex - a startlingly high number given how little recognition has been given to these persons in contemporary Western society." Indeed, many modern Westerners do not even know what intersex is, much less the statistical probability that they know intersex persons at work, in their families, or within their religious communities.”
Pages 34-35 - “In the West, if a child born with ambiguous or masculinized genitals is discovered to have CAH, doctors typically recommend that parents raise the child as a girl. Medical management includes the preservation of female internal reproductive organs, genital surgery (e.g., vaginoplasty, clitoral reduction), and hormone therapy to ensure that masculine secondary sex characteristics do not develop naturally. Doctors in Saudi Arabia, trained in Western medical traditions, typically follow the same procedures; however, some Saudi parents have rejected their recommendations. Fausto-Sterling recounts how these parents rejected the suggestion that they begin raising their "son" as their daughter. "Nor would they accept feminizing surgery for their child. As the reporting physicians write, female upbringing was resisted on social grounds.... This was essentially an expression of local community attitudes with... the preference for male offspring? About this same example, another commentator writes: "It has to be accepted that attitudes toward sex of rearing and in particular toward feminizing genito-plasties in late-diagnosed patients with CAH in the Middle East [are] going to be very different from those in Europe."
Westerners are keen to critique the sexism so apparent in the example above, but feminist scholars are eager to point out that sexism pervades Western medical practices. In addition to the preservation of female reproductive organs, surgeons explain that feminizing genital surgeries are believed to be easier to perform than masculinizing procedures given the present state of technological development. Simply put, it is difficult to construct a well-functioning penis that can both urinate and stand erect. A vagina, on the other hand, is not considered as difficult to construct. Fausto-Sterling reports one surgeon remarking: "you can make a hole but you can't build a pole. Kessler describes the frustrations of many that though a well-functioning penis is often the criterion for male sex assignment, a well-functioning vagina (self-lubricating, sensitive, able to change size and shape) is not required for female sex assignment. A vaginal opening with the potential of receiving a penis (even if painful) is all that is required.
These illustrations serve to remind us that sex, at least for the inter-sexed, is socially (and medically) constructed. Societies have presuppositions about gender that influence how they construct sex for the intersexed.
When (Western) society gives preference to chromosomes and internal reproductive organs over external genitals and makes gendered assumptions about the relative difficulty of genital surgeries, CAH patients are assigned as female and medically "managed" along the female pathway. When (Middle Eastern) societies give priority to external genitalia and social preference for male children, CAH patients are reared and medically "managed" along the masculine pathway.”
Pages 42-43 - “One intersex condition varies from most of those discussed above in the level of change between the phenotype (physical appearance) of the child at birth and as an adult. 5-alpha reductase deficiency syndrome (5-ARDs) produces a baby with female or ambiguous genitals at birth whose body is transformed at puberty into that of a male.
"5-alpha-reductase is an enzyme that converts the weaker testosterone into the more potent dihydrotestosterone (DHT)." Lower levels of this enzyme allow genitalia in an XY individual to develop along the female pathway (as it would in an XY individual with Swyer syndrome or streak gonads). Unlike Swyer, where testosterone levels never reach sufficient levels to masculinize the child, persons with 5-ARDs do experience mas-culinizing puberty.? At puberty, the testes descend and virilization causes
"enlargement of the phallus, erection and ejaculation, deepening of the voice, development of masculine body structure and a male psychosexual orientation." As adults, persons with 5-ARDs resemble other men in most ways except that facial hair is sparse, hairlines on the forehead do not recede, they do not have acne, and their prostates remain small.
This rare condition has been documented in larger numbers in ethnic groups in locations "ranging from Central America to Vietnam. Indeed, more than 5o families with over 100 affected individuals have been reported.”
Page 44 - “How Many Intersex Persons Are There?
The reader will be able to recognize by now that the answer to this question depends upon one's definition. Should intersex be defined as any deviation from the medical ideals of male and female, as Fausto-Sterling has argued?
Or should a condition only be recognized as intersex if, as Leonard Sax insists, "chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female?
Sax's definition excludes late-onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia, vaginal agenesis, Turner syndrome, Klinefelter's syndrome, and other non-XX and non-XY chromosome patterns. True intersex conditions, he writes, only occur in 0.018 percent of the population (or 1:55,556), Fausto-Sterling's definition produces a frequency of 1.7 percent of all live births, or 1 to 2 per
100. This frequency rate may appear high, but it is significantly reduced from the 4 percent figure she cited in earlier research.”
Pages 46-47 - “The idea of persons of mixed sex goes back as far as cultures can remember.
In the West, the term "hermaphrodite" comes from the Greek and has its roots in two different myths. In the first, Hermes (the son of Zeus; patron god of music, dreams, and livestock) and Aphrodite (goddess of sexual love and beauty) conceive a child of mixed sex whom they name after themselves, Hermaphroditos. In the second legend, their beautiful male child falls desperately in love with a water nymph who becomes joined to him in an eternal embrace. Plato transposed these myths into a theory of origins, suggesting that there were originally three sexes: male, female, and hermaphrodite. He speculated that the third had been lost over the generations.”
Page 71 - “In light of Jesus' strict rule, they conclude, "it is better not to marry" (v. 10 NIV).
Jesus does not applaud their deduction; rather, he admits, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can" (VV. 11-12 NRSV).
Jesus mentions three types of eunuchs, repeating a pattern familiar to rabbinic scholars. First-century Jews called naturally born eunuchs "eunuchs of the sun" (saris khama) - indicating that they were discovered to be eunuchs at the moment the sun shone upon them. Babies born with ambiguous or poorly formed genitals were considered eunuchs from the day of their birth." The second type of eunuch was a castrated male, while the third invited interpretive debate.”
Page 72 - “According to Eusebius, Origen, compelled by his desire to follow Jesus instructions perfectly, presented himself to a physician for castration. Some speculate that Origen was concerned about his reputation and wanted to protect himself from scandal given his willingness to educate both men and women…. Origen may have been the most famous early Christian eunuch, but he was hardly unique. There were enough Christians taking Jesus' words literally that the Church Fathers, as early as the Council of Nicaea (325), saw the need to address the issue. They declared that self-castration would henceforth disqualify an individual from ordination to the priesthood, while involuntary castration would not, of itself, bar a man from holy orders.”
Page 74 - “Eunuchs handled everything from powerful administrative functions and military command to cup-bearing and guarding the intimate spaces of their masters and mistresses. Cut off from their families of origin, raised to see the family of their master as their own family, and prevented from fathering children of their own, eunuchs owed their entire identity, complete loyalty, to their masters. Their inability to procreate barred them from claiming power in their own name, and also from producing heirs who might challenge the dynastic authority of the sacred king or emperor.?é Their gender ambiguity also enabled them to mediate between men and women, elite and public, sacred and secular. Thus, Kathryn Ringrose has aptly labeled eunuchs "perfect servants."
Page 78 - “And yet, in spite of all the marks against eunuchs, the prophet Isaiah predicted a time when they would be included with God's people and receive a blessing beyond what Jewish men and women could hope for…
and do not let the eunuch say,
"I am just a dry tree."
For thus says the LORD:
To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant,
I will give, in my house and within my walls,
a monument and a name better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name”
Page 79 - “Even with the prediction of Isaiah, its fulfillment in Acts 8, and Jesus' positive mention of eunuchs, Christians continued Jewish prejudices against eunuchs. On the whole, the eunuch continued to be understood as the quintessential foreigner — pagan and sexually immoral. These associations may explain why Christians reacted so strongly against castration in the Latin West.”
Page 80 - “The very existence of eunuchs threatened legal, religious, and ethical systems built upon the separation of the sexes. Romans debated the legal status of eunuchs and whose rights were granted or withheld, depending upon who was in power. While such debates may be difficult to understand from a modern point of view, one should not forget that legal processes, such as testifying in court and creating a last will and testament, are etymologically dependent on testis, the male organ. Genesis 24:9 and 47:29 recount the practice of placing one hand on the male genitals (euphemistically translated
"under the thigh") when taking an oath.
Eunuchs and women simply did
not have the anatomical equipment to make promises, bear witness, or issue bequests.
Page 83 - “Eunuchs were angelic, not only in appearance but also in voice. Because women were prohibited from singing in church, boys were castrated to ensure soprano singers in Eastern and Western Christendom - a practice that can be dated at least as far back as the fourth century C.E. and was not abandoned by the Roman Church until the last century. In fact, the voice of the "last angel of Rome," Alessandro Moreschi (1858-1922), was preserved by one of the earliest sound recordings of the twentieth century.”
Page 99 - “Ringrose shows how, over the course of centuries, the Byzantine perspective on eunuchs changed considerably. While in late antiquity eunuchs were almost universally judged as morally bankrupt, between the eighth and the eleventh century eunuchs could also be described as the holiest of God's servants.”
Pages 104-105 - “By analyzing Jesus' statement about natural eunuchs through the lens of intersex, one can draw several conclusions. First, Jesus was not afraid of eunuchs. He was not disgusted by them. He did not ridicule them, as did Jews, Romans, and Greeks; nor did he speak of them as "proof of the Fall." David Hester notes an important contrast. "Jesus heals the blind, the paralyzed, the possessed, the fevered, the leprous, the hemorrhaging, even the dead, in every case restoring them to full societal membership. In the case of the eunuch, however, there is no implication whatsoever of 'illness' or social deformity' in need of restoration. Instead, the eunuch is held up as the model to follow."
Out of his great compassion for outcasts, Jesus took up the shametul identity of the eunuch and turned it upside down into an identity for his disciples — a personal identity that did not conform to the gender ideals of the ancient world. Just as Jesus transformed the cross from a symbol of defeat into a symbol of victory, he brought eunuchs in from outside and raised them up from shame and suspicion to become icons of radical discipleship.
In the metaphor of the eunuch, Jesus presented the possibility of renouncing marriage for the sake of the kingdom, but he did not do so within a patriarchal framework. He did not call for the "manly men," the men who did not need women, to come follow him. Rather, he challenged their most valued identity, the identity of masculinity within a patriarchal world. He called them to leave the power of the paterfamilias, to reject the honor associated with the husband, father, grandfather, and to take up shame instead - the ambiguous, scandalous reputation of the eunuch.”
Page 105 - “In calling his disciples to learn from eunuchs, Jesus was calling them to learn from those whose gender identity was not secure, to learn that gender identity is not the central value in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus was undermining the power structures of the day: family ties, inheritance of wealth and property, gender privilege. Many early Christians found that some of these were easier to renounce than others. The history of the church reveals that many found it easier to abandon sexual pleasure than masculine power and privilege. Christians today may find the reverse to be true. That the eunuch was reworked into a masculine metaphor is a tragedy yet to be corrected.”
Page 116 - “Given this hierarchical understanding of human nature (and all reality), Thomas Laqueur has argued that there was only one sex recognized in the ancient world, the male, and a true male was a rare specimen. Most people existed as more or less perfect males, in other words, more or less perfect humans. Aristotle's famous dictum that a woman was a "misbegotten" or “mutilated" male supports such an argument, as do classical anatomical texts. Laqueur shows how medical texts from the ancient world all the way up through the Renaissance maintained that female reproductive organs were simply the inversion of male organs in the way they diagrammed and named female reproductive structures." Women were men, turned inward, physically but also socially. Hermaphrodites were imperfect men and imperfect inverted men.”
Page 126 - “Luther argued against the Greek and medieval assumption that women were morally inferior and lesser images of God than men were. Still, he maintained, "there is a great difference between the sexes. The male is like the sun in heaven, the female like the moon... therefore, let us note from this passage [Gen. 1:27] that it was written that this sex may not be excluded from any glory of the human creature, although it is inferior to the male sex.
Luther had a fairly high view of female education, possibly due to his marriage to an educated nun.”
Page 173 - “Intersexed bodies show, once again, how males and females are made of the same "stuff." It is not impossible for a "male" fetus (XY chromosomes and testes) to develop into a female - complete with labia, clitoris, a short vagina, breasts, feminine musculoskeletal structure, and female gender identity. This is the common pattern for intersexed persons with androgen insensitivity syndrome, one of the more common intersex conditions. Similarly, it is not impossible for a "female" fetus (XX chromosomes and ovaries) to develop into a male - complete with a phallus capable of vaginal penetration, male pattern hair growth, voice descent, masculine musculoskeletal development, and male gender identity — as is possible in more severe cases of congenital adrenal hyperplasia. To call androgens and estrogens "male hormones" and "female hormones" respectively is misleading, given that both androgens and estrogens course through the veins of men, women, and intersexed persons (albeit at different levels) and affect much more than reproductive and secondary sex characteristics. Even gonadal tissue is undifferentiated in the early weeks of gestation. Males, females, and intersexed persons are made of the same "stuff."
Page 177 - “That the Genesis accounts do not provide us with a comprehensive list of creational diversity should not go unnoticed. Biblical scholar Roy Ciampa has observed that Genesis 1 offers us broad categories of difference: dry land and seas (v. 10); "vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it" (v. 11 NIV); sun, moon, and stars (v. 16); creatures that live in the waters and in the air (V. 20-21)…This chapter does not list other forms or mixed forms regularly seen in creation: rivers, asteroids, planets, amphibians, dusk, dawn, etc. Few would argue that these "others" or "hybrids" are a result of the Fall, or that they stray from God's creational intent. Genesis simply does not give us a comprehensive list of all the good things God has made.”
Page 183 - “Susannah Cornwall has argued that there is no need for us to believe that intersexed bodies will be "healed" or "corrected" at the resurrection, that is, transformed into an ideal male or female body.
She insists that new creation brings about not only the healing of individuals and their bodies, but also the healing of communities to the point that identities of difference that now divide and impair communal life will no longer be divisive or limiting."
Page 226 - “The fact that biblical authors had the term eros at their disposal but consistently rejected it in favor of agape — an obscure alternative - should not go unnoticed. They knew of the association of eros with religious devotion, but, probably because of the rampant relationship of eros with sexuality and fertility religions, they avoided its use.”
Page 266 - “Circumcision is a central rite in the Hebrew canon, and the text explicitly describes it as an "eternal covenant" (Gen 17:13) to be observed by Jews and, most importantly, by any foreigner who wished to join Judaism (Gen 17:27; Exod 12:48). Nevertheless, in a decision that must have surprised and befuddled the Jewish party, the council finally decided that the Gentiles could become Christians without circumcision and without observing Jewish law. This decision was partly based on Scripture, but the deciding factor, according to Acts, was that the Gentiles had received the gift of the Holy Spirit without circumcision. So the Holy Spirit's "voice" (its supernatural activity) tilted the theological scale in the direction of the pro-Gentile party. The weaker position from Scripture supported by the Spirit, bested the stronger position opposed by the Spirit.
Many Christian communities find themselves in a similar place today, wrestling to reconcile what they believe to be the stronger biblical position - which consistently describes marriage as heterosexual (even if not always monogamous, legislates against sexual practices outside of this pattern, 8and prohibits at least some kinds of homosexual activity - with godly, Spirit-filled, gay, and transgender Christians whom they know, respect, and love.”
For my own future notes:
Page 5 - “Physicians estimate that 1 in every 2,500-4,500 children is born intersex - a startlingly high number given how little recognition has been given to these persons in contemporary Western society." Indeed, many modern Westerners do not even know what intersex is, much less the statistical probability that they know intersex persons at work, in their families, or within their religious communities.”
Pages 34-35 - “In the West, if a child born with ambiguous or masculinized genitals is discovered to have CAH, doctors typically recommend that parents raise the child as a girl. Medical management includes the preservation of female internal reproductive organs, genital surgery (e.g., vaginoplasty, clitoral reduction), and hormone therapy to ensure that masculine secondary sex characteristics do not develop naturally. Doctors in Saudi Arabia, trained in Western medical traditions, typically follow the same procedures; however, some Saudi parents have rejected their recommendations. Fausto-Sterling recounts how these parents rejected the suggestion that they begin raising their "son" as their daughter. "Nor would they accept feminizing surgery for their child. As the reporting physicians write, female upbringing was resisted on social grounds.... This was essentially an expression of local community attitudes with... the preference for male offspring? About this same example, another commentator writes: "It has to be accepted that attitudes toward sex of rearing and in particular toward feminizing genito-plasties in late-diagnosed patients with CAH in the Middle East [are] going to be very different from those in Europe."
Westerners are keen to critique the sexism so apparent in the example above, but feminist scholars are eager to point out that sexism pervades Western medical practices. In addition to the preservation of female reproductive organs, surgeons explain that feminizing genital surgeries are believed to be easier to perform than masculinizing procedures given the present state of technological development. Simply put, it is difficult to construct a well-functioning penis that can both urinate and stand erect. A vagina, on the other hand, is not considered as difficult to construct. Fausto-Sterling reports one surgeon remarking: "you can make a hole but you can't build a pole. Kessler describes the frustrations of many that though a well-functioning penis is often the criterion for male sex assignment, a well-functioning vagina (self-lubricating, sensitive, able to change size and shape) is not required for female sex assignment. A vaginal opening with the potential of receiving a penis (even if painful) is all that is required.
These illustrations serve to remind us that sex, at least for the inter-sexed, is socially (and medically) constructed. Societies have presuppositions about gender that influence how they construct sex for the intersexed.
When (Western) society gives preference to chromosomes and internal reproductive organs over external genitals and makes gendered assumptions about the relative difficulty of genital surgeries, CAH patients are assigned as female and medically "managed" along the female pathway. When (Middle Eastern) societies give priority to external genitalia and social preference for male children, CAH patients are reared and medically "managed" along the masculine pathway.”
Pages 42-43 - “One intersex condition varies from most of those discussed above in the level of change between the phenotype (physical appearance) of the child at birth and as an adult. 5-alpha reductase deficiency syndrome (5-ARDs) produces a baby with female or ambiguous genitals at birth whose body is transformed at puberty into that of a male.
"5-alpha-reductase is an enzyme that converts the weaker testosterone into the more potent dihydrotestosterone (DHT)." Lower levels of this enzyme allow genitalia in an XY individual to develop along the female pathway (as it would in an XY individual with Swyer syndrome or streak gonads). Unlike Swyer, where testosterone levels never reach sufficient levels to masculinize the child, persons with 5-ARDs do experience mas-culinizing puberty.? At puberty, the testes descend and virilization causes
"enlargement of the phallus, erection and ejaculation, deepening of the voice, development of masculine body structure and a male psychosexual orientation." As adults, persons with 5-ARDs resemble other men in most ways except that facial hair is sparse, hairlines on the forehead do not recede, they do not have acne, and their prostates remain small.
This rare condition has been documented in larger numbers in ethnic groups in locations "ranging from Central America to Vietnam. Indeed, more than 5o families with over 100 affected individuals have been reported.”
Page 44 - “How Many Intersex Persons Are There?
The reader will be able to recognize by now that the answer to this question depends upon one's definition. Should intersex be defined as any deviation from the medical ideals of male and female, as Fausto-Sterling has argued?
Or should a condition only be recognized as intersex if, as Leonard Sax insists, "chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female?
Sax's definition excludes late-onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia, vaginal agenesis, Turner syndrome, Klinefelter's syndrome, and other non-XX and non-XY chromosome patterns. True intersex conditions, he writes, only occur in 0.018 percent of the population (or 1:55,556), Fausto-Sterling's definition produces a frequency of 1.7 percent of all live births, or 1 to 2 per
100. This frequency rate may appear high, but it is significantly reduced from the 4 percent figure she cited in earlier research.”
Pages 46-47 - “The idea of persons of mixed sex goes back as far as cultures can remember.
In the West, the term "hermaphrodite" comes from the Greek and has its roots in two different myths. In the first, Hermes (the son of Zeus; patron god of music, dreams, and livestock) and Aphrodite (goddess of sexual love and beauty) conceive a child of mixed sex whom they name after themselves, Hermaphroditos. In the second legend, their beautiful male child falls desperately in love with a water nymph who becomes joined to him in an eternal embrace. Plato transposed these myths into a theory of origins, suggesting that there were originally three sexes: male, female, and hermaphrodite. He speculated that the third had been lost over the generations.”
Page 71 - “In light of Jesus' strict rule, they conclude, "it is better not to marry" (v. 10 NIV).
Jesus does not applaud their deduction; rather, he admits, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can" (VV. 11-12 NRSV).
Jesus mentions three types of eunuchs, repeating a pattern familiar to rabbinic scholars. First-century Jews called naturally born eunuchs "eunuchs of the sun" (saris khama) - indicating that they were discovered to be eunuchs at the moment the sun shone upon them. Babies born with ambiguous or poorly formed genitals were considered eunuchs from the day of their birth." The second type of eunuch was a castrated male, while the third invited interpretive debate.”
Page 72 - “According to Eusebius, Origen, compelled by his desire to follow Jesus instructions perfectly, presented himself to a physician for castration. Some speculate that Origen was concerned about his reputation and wanted to protect himself from scandal given his willingness to educate both men and women…. Origen may have been the most famous early Christian eunuch, but he was hardly unique. There were enough Christians taking Jesus' words literally that the Church Fathers, as early as the Council of Nicaea (325), saw the need to address the issue. They declared that self-castration would henceforth disqualify an individual from ordination to the priesthood, while involuntary castration would not, of itself, bar a man from holy orders.”
Page 74 - “Eunuchs handled everything from powerful administrative functions and military command to cup-bearing and guarding the intimate spaces of their masters and mistresses. Cut off from their families of origin, raised to see the family of their master as their own family, and prevented from fathering children of their own, eunuchs owed their entire identity, complete loyalty, to their masters. Their inability to procreate barred them from claiming power in their own name, and also from producing heirs who might challenge the dynastic authority of the sacred king or emperor.?é Their gender ambiguity also enabled them to mediate between men and women, elite and public, sacred and secular. Thus, Kathryn Ringrose has aptly labeled eunuchs "perfect servants."
Page 78 - “And yet, in spite of all the marks against eunuchs, the prophet Isaiah predicted a time when they would be included with God's people and receive a blessing beyond what Jewish men and women could hope for…
and do not let the eunuch say,
"I am just a dry tree."
For thus says the LORD:
To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant,
I will give, in my house and within my walls,
a monument and a name better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name”
Page 79 - “Even with the prediction of Isaiah, its fulfillment in Acts 8, and Jesus' positive mention of eunuchs, Christians continued Jewish prejudices against eunuchs. On the whole, the eunuch continued to be understood as the quintessential foreigner — pagan and sexually immoral. These associations may explain why Christians reacted so strongly against castration in the Latin West.”
Page 80 - “The very existence of eunuchs threatened legal, religious, and ethical systems built upon the separation of the sexes. Romans debated the legal status of eunuchs and whose rights were granted or withheld, depending upon who was in power. While such debates may be difficult to understand from a modern point of view, one should not forget that legal processes, such as testifying in court and creating a last will and testament, are etymologically dependent on testis, the male organ. Genesis 24:9 and 47:29 recount the practice of placing one hand on the male genitals (euphemistically translated
"under the thigh") when taking an oath.
Eunuchs and women simply did
not have the anatomical equipment to make promises, bear witness, or issue bequests.
Page 83 - “Eunuchs were angelic, not only in appearance but also in voice. Because women were prohibited from singing in church, boys were castrated to ensure soprano singers in Eastern and Western Christendom - a practice that can be dated at least as far back as the fourth century C.E. and was not abandoned by the Roman Church until the last century. In fact, the voice of the "last angel of Rome," Alessandro Moreschi (1858-1922), was preserved by one of the earliest sound recordings of the twentieth century.”
Page 99 - “Ringrose shows how, over the course of centuries, the Byzantine perspective on eunuchs changed considerably. While in late antiquity eunuchs were almost universally judged as morally bankrupt, between the eighth and the eleventh century eunuchs could also be described as the holiest of God's servants.”
Pages 104-105 - “By analyzing Jesus' statement about natural eunuchs through the lens of intersex, one can draw several conclusions. First, Jesus was not afraid of eunuchs. He was not disgusted by them. He did not ridicule them, as did Jews, Romans, and Greeks; nor did he speak of them as "proof of the Fall." David Hester notes an important contrast. "Jesus heals the blind, the paralyzed, the possessed, the fevered, the leprous, the hemorrhaging, even the dead, in every case restoring them to full societal membership. In the case of the eunuch, however, there is no implication whatsoever of 'illness' or social deformity' in need of restoration. Instead, the eunuch is held up as the model to follow."
Out of his great compassion for outcasts, Jesus took up the shametul identity of the eunuch and turned it upside down into an identity for his disciples — a personal identity that did not conform to the gender ideals of the ancient world. Just as Jesus transformed the cross from a symbol of defeat into a symbol of victory, he brought eunuchs in from outside and raised them up from shame and suspicion to become icons of radical discipleship.
In the metaphor of the eunuch, Jesus presented the possibility of renouncing marriage for the sake of the kingdom, but he did not do so within a patriarchal framework. He did not call for the "manly men," the men who did not need women, to come follow him. Rather, he challenged their most valued identity, the identity of masculinity within a patriarchal world. He called them to leave the power of the paterfamilias, to reject the honor associated with the husband, father, grandfather, and to take up shame instead - the ambiguous, scandalous reputation of the eunuch.”
Page 105 - “In calling his disciples to learn from eunuchs, Jesus was calling them to learn from those whose gender identity was not secure, to learn that gender identity is not the central value in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus was undermining the power structures of the day: family ties, inheritance of wealth and property, gender privilege. Many early Christians found that some of these were easier to renounce than others. The history of the church reveals that many found it easier to abandon sexual pleasure than masculine power and privilege. Christians today may find the reverse to be true. That the eunuch was reworked into a masculine metaphor is a tragedy yet to be corrected.”
Page 116 - “Given this hierarchical understanding of human nature (and all reality), Thomas Laqueur has argued that there was only one sex recognized in the ancient world, the male, and a true male was a rare specimen. Most people existed as more or less perfect males, in other words, more or less perfect humans. Aristotle's famous dictum that a woman was a "misbegotten" or “mutilated" male supports such an argument, as do classical anatomical texts. Laqueur shows how medical texts from the ancient world all the way up through the Renaissance maintained that female reproductive organs were simply the inversion of male organs in the way they diagrammed and named female reproductive structures." Women were men, turned inward, physically but also socially. Hermaphrodites were imperfect men and imperfect inverted men.”
Page 126 - “Luther argued against the Greek and medieval assumption that women were morally inferior and lesser images of God than men were. Still, he maintained, "there is a great difference between the sexes. The male is like the sun in heaven, the female like the moon... therefore, let us note from this passage [Gen. 1:27] that it was written that this sex may not be excluded from any glory of the human creature, although it is inferior to the male sex.
Luther had a fairly high view of female education, possibly due to his marriage to an educated nun.”
Page 173 - “Intersexed bodies show, once again, how males and females are made of the same "stuff." It is not impossible for a "male" fetus (XY chromosomes and testes) to develop into a female - complete with labia, clitoris, a short vagina, breasts, feminine musculoskeletal structure, and female gender identity. This is the common pattern for intersexed persons with androgen insensitivity syndrome, one of the more common intersex conditions. Similarly, it is not impossible for a "female" fetus (XX chromosomes and ovaries) to develop into a male - complete with a phallus capable of vaginal penetration, male pattern hair growth, voice descent, masculine musculoskeletal development, and male gender identity — as is possible in more severe cases of congenital adrenal hyperplasia. To call androgens and estrogens "male hormones" and "female hormones" respectively is misleading, given that both androgens and estrogens course through the veins of men, women, and intersexed persons (albeit at different levels) and affect much more than reproductive and secondary sex characteristics. Even gonadal tissue is undifferentiated in the early weeks of gestation. Males, females, and intersexed persons are made of the same "stuff."
Page 177 - “That the Genesis accounts do not provide us with a comprehensive list of creational diversity should not go unnoticed. Biblical scholar Roy Ciampa has observed that Genesis 1 offers us broad categories of difference: dry land and seas (v. 10); "vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it" (v. 11 NIV); sun, moon, and stars (v. 16); creatures that live in the waters and in the air (V. 20-21)…This chapter does not list other forms or mixed forms regularly seen in creation: rivers, asteroids, planets, amphibians, dusk, dawn, etc. Few would argue that these "others" or "hybrids" are a result of the Fall, or that they stray from God's creational intent. Genesis simply does not give us a comprehensive list of all the good things God has made.”
Page 183 - “Susannah Cornwall has argued that there is no need for us to believe that intersexed bodies will be "healed" or "corrected" at the resurrection, that is, transformed into an ideal male or female body.
She insists that new creation brings about not only the healing of individuals and their bodies, but also the healing of communities to the point that identities of difference that now divide and impair communal life will no longer be divisive or limiting."
Page 226 - “The fact that biblical authors had the term eros at their disposal but consistently rejected it in favor of agape — an obscure alternative - should not go unnoticed. They knew of the association of eros with religious devotion, but, probably because of the rampant relationship of eros with sexuality and fertility religions, they avoided its use.”
Page 266 - “Circumcision is a central rite in the Hebrew canon, and the text explicitly describes it as an "eternal covenant" (Gen 17:13) to be observed by Jews and, most importantly, by any foreigner who wished to join Judaism (Gen 17:27; Exod 12:48). Nevertheless, in a decision that must have surprised and befuddled the Jewish party, the council finally decided that the Gentiles could become Christians without circumcision and without observing Jewish law. This decision was partly based on Scripture, but the deciding factor, according to Acts, was that the Gentiles had received the gift of the Holy Spirit without circumcision. So the Holy Spirit's "voice" (its supernatural activity) tilted the theological scale in the direction of the pro-Gentile party. The weaker position from Scripture supported by the Spirit, bested the stronger position opposed by the Spirit.
Many Christian communities find themselves in a similar place today, wrestling to reconcile what they believe to be the stronger biblical position - which consistently describes marriage as heterosexual (even if not always monogamous, legislates against sexual practices outside of this pattern, 8and prohibits at least some kinds of homosexual activity - with godly, Spirit-filled, gay, and transgender Christians whom they know, respect, and love.”
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 14, 2022
In a word: Thorough. Not the most readable (289 pages in 6 chapters) and very scholarly in tone, but she does go through some interesting history of how the Church has responded to people who don’t fall into the male/female binary over the centuries. I think she could have accomplished her goals with a much shorter book. Not my favorite, but still a useful read.
January 15, 2022
I am revising my rating for this book. I was originally feeling a 3.5 and went with a 3. However, I have realized that some of my disappointments came from my own expectations. For some reason (likely because of who gave me this book) I had expected this book to focus even more on intersex people in Christian spaces. It certainly does cover this, but it does so in context of the wider discussion of sex difference as a whole in Christianity. This is the literal title of the book, so I have only myself to blame for any unmet expectations.
For it's actual stated purpose, the book does an excellent job tracing how gender had been seen through the history of Christianity. Although dry at times, the book is thorough and not difficult to read. I have found now that when I read other books on similar subjects, this book is frequently called to mind and deepens my understanding of my current read.
For it's actual stated purpose, the book does an excellent job tracing how gender had been seen through the history of Christianity. Although dry at times, the book is thorough and not difficult to read. I have found now that when I read other books on similar subjects, this book is frequently called to mind and deepens my understanding of my current read.
February 3, 2018
This is hands-down one of the most important books for the church today. DeFranza's careful attention to both conservative theology and the lived reality of intersexed persons is rare and badly needed.
May 11, 2020
This is an excellent contribution about identity and gender in particular in relation to intersex persons and their full place amid humanity and the heart of God.
Not a light read but well worth engaging with
Not a light read but well worth engaging with
August 3, 2019
This book is a must-read for Christians interested in the theological dimensions of questions of gender identity and sexuality. DeFranza treats a narrow topic - the place of intersex people in the Church and how conservative theologians might make space for them in their anthropology - and only touches lightly on the wider issues around LGBTQ+ people and the Church. This narrow focus is a strength and makes for a deep theological discussion that is not only engaging and meaningful but also thoroughly enjoyable.
After briefly introducing a variety of intersex conditions that are recognized by the medical community, DeFranza spends the first half of the book outlining the history of Western Christian thought about biological sex. She argues convincingly that the ancients assented to a sex/gender hierarchy, with women at the bottom, men at the top, and eunuchs/intersex somewhere in the middle. In essence, there was only one sex - male - and women (and intersex people) were thus seen as (physically and morally) degenerate versions of men. This was in keeping with wider Roman culture and may have helped the early Christian church win its respectability. At the same time, however, this way of looking at things was at odds with Jesus' elevation of the eunuch as a model of discipleship (Matthew 19:1-12) and with Paul's insistence that in Christ "there is no longer male or female" (Galatians 3:28). In practice, however, space was made for the intersex to take on a traditional gender role so long as they did not bring about disorder by switching their gender role after it had been chosen. After the Industrial Revolution, when men first left their households for the sake of work, women were elevated to the status of being their own sex. Along with this came a shift towards a complementarian (rather than hierarchical) view of gender roles, as well as a shift towards "correcting" the intersex through surgery. By the time of Karl Barth in the 20th century, theology had taken a turn towards emphasizing how the image of God is expressed through our relationality. Marriage became the key human model for the "I-Thou" relationship between Christ and the Father, but as a result those who could not enter into traditional marriages (including the intersex) were kept from seeing themselves as being made fully in the image of God.
From here DeFranza attempts to open up space for the intersex in conservative Christian theology, exploring what the implications may be if we pay attention to and include the intersex rather than closing our ears to them. She reframes Adam and Eve as fountainheads for human diversity in age, language, race, sex, etc. rather than as archetypes (male/female) that all people must conform to. This makes sense so long as biological sex is not more essential to personal identity than these other variables. She notes the tendency of theologians to ignore the Holy Spirit when considering the "I-Thou" relationship between Christ and the Father, suggesting that including the Holy Spirit in this picture "does not undermine duality but opens up the kinds of relations possible by moving beyond two subjects in relation". Similarly, she suggests that we may include the intersex in our anthropology without demolishing the concepts of male/female; it is not the far ends of the continuum that are harmful, but rather the absolute binary that excludes the possibility of any middle ground. Ultimately we must look to Jesus to tell us what the image of God looks like in us, but even here we must be careful not to make too much of Jesus' maleness. Though perhaps unlikely, it is possible that Jesus was intersexed; in any case, imagining him in this way forces us to open up space for the real intersexed among us. Deriving our ultimate identity from Christ also implies a decentering of our "natural" identities along the lines of race, gender, sexuality, etc. By not taking our own biological sex so seriously, we can again open up room for others who do not fit the typical categories of male/female.
DeFranza's tone throughout is gracious and irenic, so if anyone has a chance of getting through to conservative Christians on the topic of intersex, I think it is her. I worry that her openness to other possibilities in gender and sexuality will cause her arguments to fall on deaf ears, but in my view it is that very openness which makes her work so commendable.
After briefly introducing a variety of intersex conditions that are recognized by the medical community, DeFranza spends the first half of the book outlining the history of Western Christian thought about biological sex. She argues convincingly that the ancients assented to a sex/gender hierarchy, with women at the bottom, men at the top, and eunuchs/intersex somewhere in the middle. In essence, there was only one sex - male - and women (and intersex people) were thus seen as (physically and morally) degenerate versions of men. This was in keeping with wider Roman culture and may have helped the early Christian church win its respectability. At the same time, however, this way of looking at things was at odds with Jesus' elevation of the eunuch as a model of discipleship (Matthew 19:1-12) and with Paul's insistence that in Christ "there is no longer male or female" (Galatians 3:28). In practice, however, space was made for the intersex to take on a traditional gender role so long as they did not bring about disorder by switching their gender role after it had been chosen. After the Industrial Revolution, when men first left their households for the sake of work, women were elevated to the status of being their own sex. Along with this came a shift towards a complementarian (rather than hierarchical) view of gender roles, as well as a shift towards "correcting" the intersex through surgery. By the time of Karl Barth in the 20th century, theology had taken a turn towards emphasizing how the image of God is expressed through our relationality. Marriage became the key human model for the "I-Thou" relationship between Christ and the Father, but as a result those who could not enter into traditional marriages (including the intersex) were kept from seeing themselves as being made fully in the image of God.
From here DeFranza attempts to open up space for the intersex in conservative Christian theology, exploring what the implications may be if we pay attention to and include the intersex rather than closing our ears to them. She reframes Adam and Eve as fountainheads for human diversity in age, language, race, sex, etc. rather than as archetypes (male/female) that all people must conform to. This makes sense so long as biological sex is not more essential to personal identity than these other variables. She notes the tendency of theologians to ignore the Holy Spirit when considering the "I-Thou" relationship between Christ and the Father, suggesting that including the Holy Spirit in this picture "does not undermine duality but opens up the kinds of relations possible by moving beyond two subjects in relation". Similarly, she suggests that we may include the intersex in our anthropology without demolishing the concepts of male/female; it is not the far ends of the continuum that are harmful, but rather the absolute binary that excludes the possibility of any middle ground. Ultimately we must look to Jesus to tell us what the image of God looks like in us, but even here we must be careful not to make too much of Jesus' maleness. Though perhaps unlikely, it is possible that Jesus was intersexed; in any case, imagining him in this way forces us to open up space for the real intersexed among us. Deriving our ultimate identity from Christ also implies a decentering of our "natural" identities along the lines of race, gender, sexuality, etc. By not taking our own biological sex so seriously, we can again open up room for others who do not fit the typical categories of male/female.
DeFranza's tone throughout is gracious and irenic, so if anyone has a chance of getting through to conservative Christians on the topic of intersex, I think it is her. I worry that her openness to other possibilities in gender and sexuality will cause her arguments to fall on deaf ears, but in my view it is that very openness which makes her work so commendable.
July 18, 2021
The most interesting section of the book was the scientific/medical and historical sections. The author clearly did fairly thorough research, and it was very interesting to learn more about intersex conditions and how church and society viewed them in the past.
I also appreciated her attempt to retain the Christian understanding of self sacrificial love and virtue. She has some good points to make about Christian identity, while I do not agree with all that she says on the topic (for instance, her view on homosexual practices and union).
That said, her theological views seemed at times contradictory or speculative. She presents many different viewpoints, and sometimes it was challenging to figure out if she was a proponent or just giving the view as an option. She struggles throughout the book with intersex and imago Dei, but this has never been a problem in traditional Christianity because every person is made in God’s image regardless of differences caused by genetics l, sex, class, and so forth. Her views on Aquinas were not quite accurate as she does not quite understand him in context or the development of his views. She also does not seem to understand Pope John Paul II in light of his Catholic context in terms of metaphysical and ontological foundations which prevent him from falling into complete personalism.
I noted that she seems fairly reliant on some version of critical theory per her language of conflict, hegemony, oppression, “hetero”, etc. It seems this framework is the overarching lens through which she sees the issue and frames the concerns. She utilizes a Hegelian dialectical kind of interpretation at times which makes her seem rather contradictory and noncommittal to various views. For instance, she suggests seeing Jesus as intersex may promote healing for some, while also acknowledging that this view has issues.
At the end, she thinks she proposes a way forward for conservative views. However, she proposes a different method of interpretation, ie including more than Scripture, such as experience. This de facto means that the approach is no longer conservative. She is correct that intersex persons can get caught in “cultural wars” and feel like the church doesn’t have a place for them. Conservatives do need to ask themselves how to address this in a biblically faithful manner that exegetes texts and is not determined by experience, which is often the root of all heresies.
I also appreciated her attempt to retain the Christian understanding of self sacrificial love and virtue. She has some good points to make about Christian identity, while I do not agree with all that she says on the topic (for instance, her view on homosexual practices and union).
That said, her theological views seemed at times contradictory or speculative. She presents many different viewpoints, and sometimes it was challenging to figure out if she was a proponent or just giving the view as an option. She struggles throughout the book with intersex and imago Dei, but this has never been a problem in traditional Christianity because every person is made in God’s image regardless of differences caused by genetics l, sex, class, and so forth. Her views on Aquinas were not quite accurate as she does not quite understand him in context or the development of his views. She also does not seem to understand Pope John Paul II in light of his Catholic context in terms of metaphysical and ontological foundations which prevent him from falling into complete personalism.
I noted that she seems fairly reliant on some version of critical theory per her language of conflict, hegemony, oppression, “hetero”, etc. It seems this framework is the overarching lens through which she sees the issue and frames the concerns. She utilizes a Hegelian dialectical kind of interpretation at times which makes her seem rather contradictory and noncommittal to various views. For instance, she suggests seeing Jesus as intersex may promote healing for some, while also acknowledging that this view has issues.
At the end, she thinks she proposes a way forward for conservative views. However, she proposes a different method of interpretation, ie including more than Scripture, such as experience. This de facto means that the approach is no longer conservative. She is correct that intersex persons can get caught in “cultural wars” and feel like the church doesn’t have a place for them. Conservatives do need to ask themselves how to address this in a biblically faithful manner that exegetes texts and is not determined by experience, which is often the root of all heresies.
June 28, 2023
I came into this book having no idea what to expect; I was to read it in two weeks for a Masters-level theology class. Right off the bat the author wants you to know this is not an opinion piece of theological teardown of traditionally heterosexuals' understandings of marriage and gender in the Church. The book is more or less an explanation: Scientifically, socially, and theologically of the plight of the Intersex population. They are not in the LGBTQ+ group. DeFranza is quick to make sure the reader knows this try and get everyone to lay down there presumptions and affirming/non affirming allegiance down to learn and think on where this group of people with biological markers and indicators of sex that are scrambled up fit with Imago Dei?
Overall this book succeeds in that mission. After giving the scientific realties of the Intersex population, DeFranza fairly breaks down as many sides as she can. Whether its the Catholic churches stance on marriage and the nature of sex to as liberal and bordering on not even Christian as one can get with sexual freedom and Jesus. Each variable and side of discussions gets it due inspection. I highly recommend any believer read this book and get more familiar with the Intersex population to help start those conversations about this much hidden and grossly overlooked population.
Overall this book succeeds in that mission. After giving the scientific realties of the Intersex population, DeFranza fairly breaks down as many sides as she can. Whether its the Catholic churches stance on marriage and the nature of sex to as liberal and bordering on not even Christian as one can get with sexual freedom and Jesus. Each variable and side of discussions gets it due inspection. I highly recommend any believer read this book and get more familiar with the Intersex population to help start those conversations about this much hidden and grossly overlooked population.
June 6, 2019
Essential to any Christian
February 26, 2022
Really scholarly. Not a light read. I learned a ton though.
August 9, 2023
Thorough and well-researched. The writing is never dull, but at times it was a bit of a slog that led to some significant skimming.
A solid resource that I will definitely return to.
A solid resource that I will definitely return to.
April 10, 2016
What does it mean to be made in the image of God when you're born outside of the culturally imposed binary system of the sexes? Megan DeFranza asks this important and timely question and brings together a mixture of history, anthropology, theology and gender studies in an effort to answer it in a way that addresses the concerns of conservative Catholics and evangelical Protestants. Whether she succeeds in addressing those concerns is not for me to say, but I found helpful DeFranza's two-pronged argument: 1) that Adam and Eve represent not a paradigmatic template regarding sex, gender or sexuality but rather a starting point from which human diversity has grown to include gay, transgender and intersex individuals, and 2) that while Jesus cites Adam and Eve as male and female examples for marrriage, he also praises eunuchs – including those "born that way" – as examples worthy of emulation. Thus, DeFranza argues, there is room for the intersex to see themselves as made in God's image and included in Christ's incarnation.
DeFranza pushes back against the efforts of more liberal theologians who find in the intersexed a reason to upend heteronormativity more generally, but it seems clear that she doesn't necessarily disagree either. Mainly, DeFranza seems concerned that using the intersexed in this way is likely to harm their ability to find acceptance among churches that tend to be more conservative – never mind that some intersex individuals do not themselves agree with the effort to overthrow the conservative heteronormative hegemony.
I learned a lot from this book; DeFranza describes the history of intersex both in western culture and in the church, and she surveys the history of interpretation regarding Jesus' comments about eunuchs. She also briefly delves into the history of theological anthropology, a fancy phrase for how theologians have described the image of God as it pertains to men and women and their practical interactions. In the end, she finds that under the category of "eunuch" the intersexed had found a measure of acceptance, even privilege, in some eras of the church, but with the rise of Enlightenment modernism, the existence of intersex threatened the neat binary categories and was shoved to the shadows (or medically "corrected"). With the rise of postmodernism and the collapse of modernist hubris, DeFranza sees a new dawn for acknowledging the intersexed, welcoming them as fully imaged parts of the divine creation and allowing them to embrace their identity – both as intersexed individuals and, more important, as members of the body of Christ.
Although addressing intersex specifically, DeFranza's book is worth reading for anyone interested in the hard work of bringing the historically marginalized – women, intersex and LGBT individuals – into the church in a way that accepts and respects their identity but also moves them toward a fuller identity in the embracing arms of Jesus. But be warned: This was a Ph.D. dissertation, so it is a dense read that I hope will eventually be rewritten for the popular level. Until then, by all means make the investment in this well-researched, thought-provoking book.
DeFranza pushes back against the efforts of more liberal theologians who find in the intersexed a reason to upend heteronormativity more generally, but it seems clear that she doesn't necessarily disagree either. Mainly, DeFranza seems concerned that using the intersexed in this way is likely to harm their ability to find acceptance among churches that tend to be more conservative – never mind that some intersex individuals do not themselves agree with the effort to overthrow the conservative heteronormative hegemony.
I learned a lot from this book; DeFranza describes the history of intersex both in western culture and in the church, and she surveys the history of interpretation regarding Jesus' comments about eunuchs. She also briefly delves into the history of theological anthropology, a fancy phrase for how theologians have described the image of God as it pertains to men and women and their practical interactions. In the end, she finds that under the category of "eunuch" the intersexed had found a measure of acceptance, even privilege, in some eras of the church, but with the rise of Enlightenment modernism, the existence of intersex threatened the neat binary categories and was shoved to the shadows (or medically "corrected"). With the rise of postmodernism and the collapse of modernist hubris, DeFranza sees a new dawn for acknowledging the intersexed, welcoming them as fully imaged parts of the divine creation and allowing them to embrace their identity – both as intersexed individuals and, more important, as members of the body of Christ.
Although addressing intersex specifically, DeFranza's book is worth reading for anyone interested in the hard work of bringing the historically marginalized – women, intersex and LGBT individuals – into the church in a way that accepts and respects their identity but also moves them toward a fuller identity in the embracing arms of Jesus. But be warned: This was a Ph.D. dissertation, so it is a dense read that I hope will eventually be rewritten for the popular level. Until then, by all means make the investment in this well-researched, thought-provoking book.
February 24, 2017
This is a very well written and thorough look at the topic of intersex. She takes time to look at all of the physiological. Sons of intersexuality, she looks at the cultural history of how society has dealt with gender in general as well as the history of how the church has approached gender issues. In the second half of the book she looks at some theological positions and how they are supported or not supported scripture.
September 3, 2015
Excellent book on the often neglected topic of intersex and Christian theology. The author adds a nuanced balance to the topic, showing how the church can be accepting of intersexed individuals, yet still true to Biblical sexual ethics. Defranza is probably too liberal in her approach for many conservative Christians, but I don't see how to support a more conservative approach and still respect intersexed individuals for show they are. Although well written, Defranza does sometimes become hard to follow, and at times is repetitive and somewhat disorganized. Still, a valuable contribution to the topic.
October 29, 2025
Maintaining my original 4/5 star rating despite suspecting that this book ends in a homophobic conclusion (altho I never completed it) because of how monumental it was for shifting my perspective of not only intersex identities, but also of queer identities as a whole. This book got me thinking more about the ways western society divides gender and sex along a binary that, in reality, is much less defined and more fragile than a lot of people care to admit. Without this book, I believe it would have taken me significantly longer to acknowledge and accept my own queer, trans, nonbinary identities. (note added 20251029)
January 1, 2016
This is a great book. Lots of good information and DeFranza does a great job bringing the broader "conservative" Christian theological traditions and recent science into conversation over the topic of sex differences. I do wish that the book contained more of DeFranzas own original theology, in some places it felt more like a (well done) lit review of other theologians.
November 24, 2015
Dense. I know this started out as a dissertation but it still reads like one, which is unfortunate because there's some good material, it's just not written in a way that makes it accessible or engaging to the lay person, non-academic theologian type believer
November 16, 2016
Defranza's book is an important and thoughtful contribution to issues of sex and gender especially as they relate to intersex people. I particularly like the way in which she considers both evangelical and Roman Catholic perspectives. Her book will repay re-reading and further thought.
June 7, 2016
Interesting and thought provoking study of latest research on Intersex and how it applies to Christian beliefs
October 17, 2016
I agree that this reads like a dissertation, but I found it riveting and learned a lot. It's a clergy must read.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews