“I feel like I’ve been giving my students poison to drink,” said Abigail Favale to a fellow professor as she reflected on years of teaching gender theory to college students.[1] “For so many years,” she confessed, “I’d been careless, careless with their minds and, most disturbingly, their souls.” Favale went on to describe her teaching career this way: “I’d often felt good about exposing my students to heady and trendy theories about gender. When they voiced newfound uncertainty and confusion, as they usually did at the end of the course, I’d feel satisfied, as if my central task as a gender studies professor was to disrupt and unsettle their tidy and simplistic views, to expose them to irresolvable complexity.” But after a decade of teaching gender theory, Favale began to doubt the value of her efforts and even the truthfulness of what she had been teaching. She writes, “My conscience, after giving me reassuring high-fives for the past decade, was now clearing her throat in the backroom of my mind and asking: So, is any of this true?”[2]
Favale’s The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory is a mixture of personal biography and a Christian case against gender theory. It is an attempt to show the origins and dangers of gender theory as well as a Christian understanding of gender. Favale details her journey into feminism and her eventual embrace of gender theory. She was a self-professed Christian when she embraced feminism but eventually concluded that some of the core tenets of feminism are at odds with Christianity. This background is an important part of Favale’s theological journey and the thesis of her book. But equally important is her argument that feminism gave birth to modern gender theory, and gender theory, in turn, has eroded the very notion of womanhood. Consider Favale’s thesis in her own words:
[T]he gender paradigm is the Oedipal offspring of feminism—offspring because it is through feminist theory that the concept of gender has taken hold of our cultural imagination, and Oedipal because like Oedipus’ murder of his own father, this concept has eroded the very foundation of feminism, turning “woman” into an identity than can be freely appropriated by men, regardless of material reality.[3]
In what follows, I consider a few of Favale’s key arguments against modern gender theory in her fascinating book The Genesis of Gender.[4]
Christianity and Feminism
Favale’s path toward embracing and teaching gender theory began with feminism. While Favale believes there were some positive aspects to “first-wave” feminism, she realized in retrospect that “contemporary feminism” is at odds with Christianity.[5] She thought she had retained her Christian beliefs and had simply embraced something like “Christian feminism.” Yet Favale eventually concluded that “Christianity and contemporary feminism operate from different foundational assumptions about reality, and most versions of Christian feminism have their roots in the feminist worldview rather than the Christian one. So-called ‘Christian feminism’ is, too often, secular feminism with a light Jesus glaze on top, a cherry-picked biblical garnish.”[6] In embracing contemporary feminism, Favale had forsaken a Christian paradigm of many things, particularly what it means to be a man or woman.
One of the problems with contemporary feminism, which opened the door for gender theory, is that it holds to a constructionist view of human language—the notion that the names we give to things do not identify an essential reality already present within the thing itself. That idea may sound abstract. An example from Genesis will hopefully help clarify the point. A constructionist reading of the account of Adam naming the animals in the garden holds that as he named them he created their identities.
A more traditional and Christian correspondence view of language approaches the same account differently. When God created the animals and presented them to Adam to be named, Adam was not creating reality. He was simply identifying the inherent qualities of the animals and giving names that corresponded with those qualities. God created by speaking; Adam identified with human language what God had created by divine speech.
Favale explains the correspondence view this way, “the man’s act of naming does not impose meaning but recognizes meaning that objectively exists.”[7] She then applies this approach to the Genesis narrative much more broadly: “Reality, then, exists prior to our naming it, and our language is true and meaningful when it corresponds to what exists.”[8] Thus, “[T]he constructionist view of human language is a complete inversion of the correspondence view depicted in Genesis,” writes Favale. Therefore, contemporary feminism (and modern gender theory) is at odds with basic Christian teaching. The constructionist view of human language employed by feminist theorists opened the door to gender theory.
The Birth of Gender Theory
Feminism gave birth to gender theory in its attempt to eliminate any essential differences between the sexes. Favale writes, “Gender became the primary conceptual tool for dislodging the idea that men and women are two essentially different kinds of human beings.”[9] She summarily explains, “There is a profound irony here. Through the vehicle of feminist theory, the concept of gender has displaced manhood and womanhood from bodily sex.”[10] The outcome, however, was that in trying to elevate women, feminism elevated masculine qualities as the ideal. As Favale succinctly puts it, “Too often, freedom for women is cast as freedom from femaleness.”[11]
In large part, what Favale means by “freedom from femaleness” is freedom from the potential for childbearing and nursing infants.[12] The feminist ideal of personal autonomy, according to Favale, suppresses the reality that women’s bodies are created for the potential of childbearing and nursing.[13] Favale somewhat hauntingly writes (reacting to a feminist theorist), “Woman is an absurdity; she is an autonomous freedom trapped in a body that is designed to house an other. Her only hope is to fight against her facticity, always—to become as much like a man as possible. In order for a woman to create herself, she must repudiate herself. She must recognize the feminine as devoid of meaning and turn her gaze, her aspirations, toward the masculine ideal.”[14] Instead of elevating women, feminism, according to Favale, puts women at odds with their own bodies.[15]
“The very definition of ‘woman.’”
Feminism has given birth to gender theory. Gender theory, in turn, has cannibalized the very notion of what it means to be a woman. Favale laments, “It is a sad paradox that a movement centered on the rights of women has led us to this curious juncture where the very definition of ‘woman’ is under fierce dispute.”[16] It is indeed a sad irony.
As a result of gender theory, people show much confusion today over “sex,” “gender,” and what it means to be a man or a woman. Why is this? “Because, in a nutshell,” Favale explains, “we are deeply confused about what it means to be a body. We no longer know who we are as sexed beings, and that is mirrored in our language.”[17] A Christian understanding of what it means to be a man or woman includes sexed bodies, which includes male and female genitalia. But as Favale rightly argues, maleness and femaleness go beyond male and female genitalia. It includes large gametes (ova) that are unique to women and small gametes (sperm) that are unique to men. We could add other teachings from the Bible regarding gender roles, but Favale’s emphasis falls on sexed bodies.
We inhabit sexed bodies. This reality is plain. Favale argues that sexed bodies, which are about more than just male and female genitalia, cannot be altered by a scalpel. She writes:
If sex is defined by secondary characteristics like genital appearance and voice depth, then changing sex is possible, through surgery and synthetic hormones. If, however, sex is fundamentally about how the body is organized in relation to gamete production—a potentiality that cannot be endowed by a scalpel—then the undeniable truth is this: it is not possible to change one’s sex, because sex is constitutive of the whole person.[18]
The transgender movement denies this reality. According to transgender ideology, a male may identify as a female if he so wishes. Such a desire might be accompanied “gender reassignment surgery,” or he might request to be referred to with feminine pronouns because he feels like a woman. But “‘To feel’ is not ‘to be.’”[19] Neither surgery nor pronouns can alter reality.
Transgenderism presents a host of other practical problems for Christians. One key issue regards whether Christians should demonstrate “pronoun hospitality” by calling a man by female pronouns if that is what he requests. Favale’s answer is a loving but firm “no.”[20] Favale rightly argues that to do so is a denial of reality. She also helpfully notes, “I object to the very concept of preferred pronouns, because pronouns do not name a preference. ‘She’ names what I am, my female birthright, with all its blessings and burdens. To give away that word would be a kind of betrayal: of myself, my sex, and those bodily threads knit by nature and grace that bind us to Christ, and also the earth, to all her teeming life.”[21]
Maybe you have wondered why pronouns are such a big deal for transgender ideology. Favale explains:
To affirm the dignity and personhood of a trans-identifying person, one is expected to use pronouns that align with the chosen gender, rather than the given sex. To “misgender” someone is seen as an act of violence, an erasure of existence. I understand the argument. A transgender identity is not primarily rooted in material reality, but in language. This is why there is so much fervor over words, a concerted effort to use language in a way that reflects transgender anthropology.[22]
Elsewhere she notes, “If gender identity only exists in language, our language must be manipulated, or else the whole thing falls apart. That is what’s at stake in the battle over pronouns: our understanding of reality itself.”[23] In sum, pronouns are so closely policed by advocates of transgender ideology because they are the primary means of maintaining transgender ideology—an ideology that is rooted not in reality, but in speech only.
Conclusion
The Western world is deeply confused about basic principles of sexuality and gender. It is essentially impossible in the current cultural climate for believers to affirm and teach a biblical view of gender and sexuality without being dismissed as transphobic or homophobic. Being committed to the Bible’s teachings on these matters is not easy. But it is necessary. Transgender ideology is destroying the minds and bodies of increasing numbers of young people. We simply cannot affirm telling people that they are inhabiting the wrong body. Yet we must love and reason with those who are struggling with gender dysphoria. We must lovingly but strongly rebut the claims of transgender ideology for the good of our society. We must not permit the unbridled rebranding of “self-harm” as “self-care.” To do so, we must recommit ourselves to a deep, biblical understanding of what it means to be created by God, in the image of God, male and female.
[1] Abigail Favale, The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 2022), 13.
[2] Favale, Genesis.
[3] Favale, Genesis, 55.
[4] Favale seems to question the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and the creation account being a truly historical account. Thus, readers must take care when reading the early chapters of her book. I also note that Favale’s work is deeply Roman Catholic, which manifests itself in a variety of ways. Finally, in the later part of her book, her lack of clarity regarding homosexuality leaves the reader wondering what her views are on the matter.
[5] While I do not detail this here, Favale traces out the various “waves” of feminism and thinks it is more accurate to speak of “feminisms, plural, than a monolithic feminism” (Genesis, 55).
[6] Favale, Genesis, 55.
[7] Favale, Genesis, 42.
[8] Favale, Genesis, 43.
[9] Favale, Genesis, 148.
[10] Favale, Genesis, 158.
[11] Favale, Genesis, 69
[12] Favale deals extensively with the rise of modern contraception, particularly birth control pills, in chapter four.
[13] The word potential is an important word for Favale. She recognizes that not all women are able to conceive or give birth due to a variety of health issues. Nonetheless, the female body is still designed with the potential for childbearing whereas the male body is not. The woman who is unable to have children still bears this potential by divine design. The male body does not have this potential. This notion mitigates against the belief that, since some women are unable to bear children or nurse infants, the potential for childbearing is not part of what it means to be a woman. One of the primary implications of this line of reasoning regarding “potential” is that hormones, surgery, or a change in pronouns will never give a man this biological potential.
[14] Favale, Genesis, 65.
[15] According to Favale, this issue is one of the primary problems with feminism. In elevating a masculine ideal for women, it teaches women to despise the natural functions of their own bodies. Favale says something similar regarding “affirming” those struggling with gender dysphoria by encouraging the use of hormones, surgery, or preferred pronouns. Favale writes, “Trans identities signal a longing for wholeness, for an integrated sense of self, in which the body does reveal the person. This desire is fundamentally a good one; it reflects the truth of the human being as a unity of body and soul. The error comes in thinking that this integration has to be achieved through artifice, through violence against the body, rather than recognizing that we are integrated by our very nature. The lie—I have to force my body to reveal my true self—supplants the truth: the body I am is already revealing my personhood” (Genesis, 199).
[16] Favale, Genesis, 32.
[17] Favale, Genesis, 141.
[18] Favale, Genesis, 128–29.
[19] Favale, Genesis, 156.
[20] Many view “pronoun hospitality” as loving. However, Favale rightly argues that to do so is a fundamental denial of reality—it is “participating in a lie”—something Christians cannot do with a clean conscience. Favale is clear though that this path is difficult since not using “preferred pronouns” is viewed as hateful. She is absolutely in favor of being loving towards those struggling with gender dysphoria. She simply opposes the idea that using preferred pronouns is truly loving (Genesis, 206).
[21] Favale, Genesis, 208.
[22] Favale, Genesis, 206.
[23] Favale, Genesis, 161.
Recent Comments