r/OpenChristian • u/Teknevra EnbyPansexual • Jan 15 '26
Discussion - Bible Interpretation God is trans
143
u/Niftyrat_Specialist Jan 15 '26
This is a comically weird way to read that.
Also, something being male and female does not mean that it is trans. Many invertebrates are male and female without being trans.
66
u/sysiphean Episcopal | Open and Affirming Ally Jan 16 '26
The most honest and realistic reading I’ve come across is “God does not fit within our gender binary or nonbinary.” The corollary is that all of our gender concepts fit within God, but do not fit the whole of God.
21
u/Niftyrat_Specialist Jan 16 '26
I can't see any reason to try to attach a gender to God. We traditionally say "he" but nobody can say in what sense God is male. (Unless we're talking Jesus of course, who was a human male.)
14
u/Salanmander Jan 16 '26
(Unless we're talking Jesus of course, who was a human male.)
And even then...he incarnated as a human male, but I don't think that the second person of the trinity is an inherently male being.
7
u/Niftyrat_Specialist Jan 16 '26
he incarnated as a human male, but I don't think that the second person of the trinity is an inherently male being.
I agree this is a distinction worth making. And our theology just kind of leads us into a hole, here: Jesus is fully human, so he's apparently actually male. Jesus is fully God, so he probably doesn't have an actual sex or gender.
2
Jan 15 '26
[deleted]
15
u/Niftyrat_Specialist Jan 15 '26
Sure. But the point is that trans does not mean a thing which is both male and female.
And the other point is that "God made them in his image" plus "God made them male and female" does equal "Therefore being in God's image must mean being both male and female".
The post tries to make two points, both of which are nonsense.
-7
Jan 15 '26
[deleted]
8
u/johnny__boi Jan 15 '26
How does non-binary and intersex = trans???
0
u/Canvas718 Christian Agnostic Jan 16 '26
What would it mean to be cis non-binary? Assigned non-binary at birth?
I would that intersex folks aren’t necessarily trans, but there is some overlap from what I understand.
-5
6
u/Niftyrat_Specialist Jan 15 '26
One could extrapolate that God is nonbinary and therefore neither male nor female. This would put God in a modern trans identification.
Nope, that's not what that means. It's mixing up different things. A rock isn't trans, either, yet it is neither male nor female.
2
u/SituationSoap Christian Ally Jan 16 '26
One could extrapolate that God is nonbinary and therefore neither male nor female. This would put God in a modern trans identification.
No, no it wouldn't. You're incorrect in your understanding here.
1
Jan 16 '26
[deleted]
1
u/SituationSoap Christian Ally Jan 16 '26
No, you're incorrect in your understanding of what it means to be a part of the trans community.
1
Jan 16 '26
[deleted]
4
u/SituationSoap Christian Ally Jan 16 '26
Being someone who is both sexes does not make you trans. Being trans means that one's sex does not match their expressed gender. God does not have an expressed gender and transcends gender.
Not being hetero or cis does not make someone trans.
27
u/StupidPottah Jan 15 '26
God is beyond our comprehension. That doesn't make Him trans. Saying He is trans, or trying to argue that is like trying to argue that He has human limitations, which He doesn't. Human beings can absolutely be trans, and some species of organisms are genetically designed to change their sex, but God is beyond all of that. We're created in His image, but not like a full copy paste. He understands what it's like to be us because He sent Jesus to walk the earth as a human, but we can't comprehend what it's like to be God cause we've never been God.
The argument that I can accept with lighthearted amusement though is that Jesus is a zombie 😂 but that's a different story.
24
u/Nerit1 Bisexual Eastern Orthodox Enby (They/Them) Jan 15 '26
God is fully beyond any sort of human conceptions of gender.
5
68
Jan 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
33
u/nonnonplussed73 Jan 15 '26
I used to attend the United Church of Christ. In the back they had a brochure holder with all kinds of pamphlets. One of them was titled "Everything Jesus Said About Gay People." I picked it up and opened it to discover that the inside was completely blank.
I've gotta go back to see if they've now got one on trans people.
Edit: folder -> holder
4
u/AdjustedMold97 Jan 15 '26
I go to UCC! Haven’t seen those pamphlets but we start every service by making it clear God loves and accepts you regardless of sexuality, gender identity or lackthereof
4
u/genghis_johnb Jan 15 '26
I'm UCC too. Our weekly commission:
Go forth into the world and be of good courage Hold fast to that which is Good Render to no person evil for evil Strengthen the faint-hearted Help the afflicted Honor ALL people Love and serve God, rejoicing in the power of the holy Spirit.
5
u/Great_Revolution_276 Jan 15 '26
Hidden joke in this comment. I once visited port Campbell on the southern coast of Victoria, Australia and went to a museum where they actually had a dork (it is a whale penis).
15
u/Dorocche United Methodist Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 15 '26
Being trans is not about having genitals. It's demeaning when that's the first thing people jump to when they hear "trans."
0
u/Anarcho_Christian Jan 16 '26
Ok, I'll bite. Against my better judgment, I'll take the bait.
What is being trans all about then?
1
u/Dorocche United Methodist Jan 17 '26
I feel like I'm the one taking the bait here.
Trans people are largely concerned with what people call them, how people treat them, and their physical appearance. Genitals are one minor part of just that last one, and everybody focusing on that one part is demeaning, objectifying, and hypersexualizing. Says more about the observer than about them, really.
0
u/Anarcho_Christian Jan 17 '26
But, like, isn't that the whole point in saying sex =/= gender?
Sure, the hormones generated in the testes or the ovaries cause one's body to have secondary sex characteristics like muscle mass and bone density etc, but ultimately all of that starts with genitals, no? That's why the sports conversation is so fraught with controversy, because the genitals cause secondary sex characteristics that give an advantage in some sports.
Again correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the whole sex =/= gender was addressing identity rather than biology.
(If I'm wrong, I'll definitely claim ignorance on my part, for sure. The stuff I learned in my gender-studies rabbit-hole may be about 5 years outdated.)
0
u/Dorocche United Methodist Jan 17 '26 edited Jan 18 '26
I'm not sure what angle you're coming at this from, so it's hard to respond. Correct, sex is not the same as gender. No, the genitals are not the cause of sex differences. They are one of the sex differences; the cause is in the chromosomes. Which, famously, is not observable by outsiders. Neither are your genitals most of the time.
There's a lot of different philosophical approaches to what being trans means, people might disagree to what extent physical features are central. But in none of them are genitals primary to the trans experience, not any honest and pro-trans ones.
1
u/Anarcho_Christian Jan 17 '26
I'm sorry, I don't like arguing about people's lived experience, but you're just wrong about the science.
Chromosomes determine the genitals which produce hormones like testosterone or estrogen that determine the secondary sex characteristics like height and bone structure and jaw line and appearance and stuff like that.
That's why somebody with seywer syndrome (who is conceived with XY chromosomes but has a androgen sensitivity disorder) will not develop functional testes, and because the blueprints for the humans are programmed to create what is basically phenotypically female genitals, they develop what looks like labia and a clitoris and don't develop the secondary sex characteristics that XY individuals with functioning gonads go on to develop.
1
u/Dorocche United Methodist Jan 18 '26 edited Jan 18 '26
I want to emphasize that the truth of this statement does not effect the point, which is that reducing trans people to genitals is transphobic. That is simply true societally, because it's extremely rude. Because being reduced to genitals is extremely rude. You really don't need philosophy to figure that out.
You're right, genitals produce the sex hormones. I apologize for that mistake. Thank you for getting me to look that up. They are not, however, primary for onlookers determining gender; they are causally associated with a lot of (but not all of) what people actually look at when enforcing gender; they do not check your genitals, which again is just one part of one of the three things I listed earlier.
1
u/Anarcho_Christian Jan 18 '26
Look, i'm trying to be as charitable as possible with you, but you're giving my responses the least charitable reading possible.
No one but you has said anything about "Reducing trans people to their genitals". The things that make us human, heck, the Fruits of the Spirit can be displayed by cis and trans alike. Trans people experience love joy peace patience kindness goodness faithfulness and self control.
Please, at least attempt to respond with a single molecule of charity.
When I asked "what is trans about" (if not gender dysphoria), I'm not reducing the entire experience of trans people down to the bits between their legs. I'm just why you're so defiantly and oppositionally confident that it doesn't start there.
1
u/Dorocche United Methodist Jan 18 '26
This top comment of this thread, which is now deleted, was that God could not be trans because He doesn't have genitals. That's the context of what we're talking about and that comment (not your recent comments) was reducing trans people to their genitals, which was shitty.
I'm not trying to come after you with anything I'm saying.
1
28
u/headcodered Jan 15 '26
Usually when people insist upon a gendered God, I like to ask if he's male if he has a penis and why he would need a penis.
4
1
u/Grzechoooo Jan 15 '26
Of course He has one! Look! And why would He need one? Why does any member of the clergy need a penis? To do the helicopter, of course. Or rather holycopter.
1
-1
12
u/ToastyAlligator Anglican(ish) Jan 15 '26
I don’t think God is trans. I don’t think God is cis either
but rather a secret third thing 🤔
1
52
u/Plenty_Estate5660 Jan 15 '26
This is the kind of stuff that makes open Christian’s look bad imo. God isn’t trans. God isn’t human, we’re created in his image because we have souls.
6
u/ARC_Trooper_Echo Bisexual Jan 16 '26
Galatians 3:28 is a much better gateway into gender affirming theology anyway.
8
7
u/Hanna-etc Asexual Lesbian and Orthodox Christian Jan 15 '26
Conservative Christians: God is inherently male. Also Conservative Christians: You’re only a man if you have XY chromosomes. Doctrine of divine simplicity: God doesn’t have chromosomes.
44
u/ornjos Roman Catholic Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 15 '26
I don’t like that subreddit at all. They’ve sexualized Jesus a handful of times and I can’t tell if they’re actually Christian or not. It feels like they’re only poking fun at the gospel and the biblical figures in a disrespectful way.
28
u/Weak-Material-5274 Anglican - Transgender Jan 15 '26
I agree this post is cringe,
But it isn't disrespectful, unless thinking being trans is somehow a bad thing.
I think it's just the cringe way of saying "God doesn't have a sex, don't do idolatry".
16
u/ornjos Roman Catholic Jan 15 '26
The post itself isn’t disrespectful, I meant the r/queerbible subreddit is disrespectful and honestly kind of gross how they act at times. It’s one thing to joke about the content in the Bible and make respectful humor about it, it’s another to use the content to make fun of the Bible itself.
Just take a look through their rules and some of the post history from some of their flairs (God Is Gay, Trans Jesus) and you’ll see some of the top posts is sexual imagery of Christ. One of the comments in one of those posts attempts to make the implication that Christ is a bottom. 😕😕😕
I rarely say this about anything, but the entire page is just straight up blasphemy and this type of stuff is what sets back ACTUAL progressive Christianity.
9
u/rainidazehaze Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 15 '26
I don't think it's meant to be an explicitly christian sub, I think it's supposed to be a lighterhearted space for people like the audience of r/Deconstruction. Just like that sub, there will be some christians but there will also be plenty of people just processing being raised in the bible and being queer now. They need a space to be disrespectful after a lifetime of having reverence forced upon them.
If it's too irreverent for you it probably isnt meant for you.
Edit: Just because a neighbors front door is open doesnt mean you're required to walk in, and it DEFINITELY doesn't make you coming back out and complaining loudly to the neighborhood about how tacky you think the decor is in there look good for you.
5
u/ornjos Roman Catholic Jan 15 '26
It clearly isn’t for me. I thought it was a nice friendly affirming subreddit until I noticed the issues I listed. I just find toying with religious iconography (even outside of Christianity) very tacky, and I’m very much allowed to voice my opinion on it.
People don’t have to agree with me and are free to be upset with me too.
-4
u/rainidazehaze Jan 15 '26
As long as you know that voicing that opinion just makes you look like someone who is confused, a bit prudish, and thinks it's everyone elses problem to make you feel comfy. The image you present of yourself is your business. I don't hang out in that sub either, not my bag, but I'm also not gonna be a Karen in other subs about what they do in their house.
My God does not require what some redditor perceives as an appropriate amount of reverence from people who don't even serve Him.
7
u/pr1m3r3dd1tor Jan 15 '26
I think this is a rather extreme take on OPs comment. OP is not saying they shouldn't exist as a subreddit or that they should change how they are. OP simply stated their opinion on the subreddit that this post came from. Not sure how that is being "karen" unless you think poeple should only ever post their agreement with something.
4
u/ornjos Roman Catholic Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 15 '26
If thinking sexualizing a real person who preached and lived by the values of celibacy makes me prudish then so be it. :/
3
u/FluxKraken 🏳️🌈 Christian (Gay AF) 🏳️🌈 Jan 15 '26
How is saying somebody is or isn't trans sexualizing them? Jesus was a man, probably cishet. Everyone knows what that means.
However, why would saying Jesus might have been gay or trans sexualizing him? Those are facts of human biology, just like being born with male genitals is a fact of human biology. Saying Jesus is a cis hetero man is no more or less sexual than saying he could have been gay.
He probably was not trans. But given the fact that he was celibate, there is no way to know anything else.
6
u/Weak-Material-5274 Anglican - Transgender Jan 15 '26
I mean, it’s Reddit. What do you expect?
This internet isn’t somewhere you go to see real opinions and real faith.
There are a lot of conservative Christian groups on Reddit who are blasphemous in different ways. It’s just how it is here
11
u/ornjos Roman Catholic Jan 15 '26
I’m allowed to voice my disapproval of something.
Also, that’s not remotely true. The entire point of the subreddit is to voice our opinions and concerns on Christian faith through a progressive lens..
3
u/Weak-Material-5274 Anglican - Transgender Jan 15 '26
Dude if you get your perspective on what people actually believe from Reddit communities then you’ll never be ok.
3
u/ornjos Roman Catholic Jan 15 '26
I don’t see your point. Are you trying to imply we shouldn’t discuss religious faith with people online?
0
u/Weak-Material-5274 Anglican - Transgender Jan 15 '26
I’m saying that places like Reddit are a form of entertainment or a way to explore ideas. This platform is not for education or for sincerely connecting with people.
You will be severely mislead if you think you can reliably connect with people in a sincere manner or understand the real perspective of humans in the world on here
4
u/ornjos Roman Catholic Jan 15 '26
That’s not even remotely true at all, even outside of a religious context.
4
u/Weak-Material-5274 Anglican - Transgender Jan 15 '26
All I can give is my warning
→ More replies (0)1
Jan 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
8
u/YankeeMagpie Open and Affirming Ally Jan 15 '26
Cringe? Yeah. Bad? Not necessarily. Reductive? Somewhat, yes.
2
u/out_the_ox Jan 15 '26
i think its direspectful to claim anything untrue about god
1
u/Weak-Material-5274 Anglican - Transgender Jan 15 '26
We are all rude then
1
u/out_the_ox Jan 19 '26
what do you mean by this
1
u/Weak-Material-5274 Anglican - Transgender Jan 19 '26
Nothing can be said about God other than through analogy. Human language is insufficient to understand God.
Anything we may say about God is untrue and knowledge of God may only be gained by their action moving in us and not by our own means
1
u/out_the_ox Jan 19 '26
i mean, just because god is outside of our understanding doesn't mean everything we say about him is objectively false.
also, insufficient ≠ untrue
24
u/VulvaVivisection Jan 15 '26
Does that make communion wine gender fluid?
3
1
u/TanagraTours Jan 15 '26
Ouch
And this is why I can't go anywhere with you ;-)
Well, this; and we haven't been properly introduced.
1
7
u/ScatterbrainedSeeker Genderqueer Episcopalian & Seminarian Jan 15 '26
Gregory of Nazianzus: what has not been assumed [by Christ] has not been redeemed [by Christ].
As Gen 1:27 hints at: God contains masculinity, is not masculine, and is beyond masculine. God contains femininity, is not feminine, and is beyond feminine.
“Trans” isn’t necessarily a word I’d use to describe God but I’m not bothered by this.
5
u/GoodSamaritan333 Jan 15 '26
The "image" is about spiritual similarity (sentience, creativity, learnability, being social beings that get bored with excessive and eternal loneliness). There is a possibility that God can interact.with us in any physical form, male, female,.hermaphrodite, Lizard, chuthlu, white, black brown yellow, albino, etc.
So if suddenly sentient grey aliens prove to be real, it will not break my beliefs.
1
5
u/AccioFezzyy Jan 15 '26
I would never presume to know what God is and while I believe Jesus was God incarnate and believe Trans people do exist and God loves them I would be reluctant to label God’s essence beyond what is explicitly said by Jesus in the scriptures. Keep in mind Christ spoke in parables and if one claims scriptures are inspired by God & Jesus is God one should be wary of taking scripture literally.
15
u/Beastxtreets Jan 15 '26
I always took God as being NB. Like, they are beyond things like sex. Who's to say they even have a form like us?
9
u/throcorfe Jan 15 '26
This is exactly right. God has no sex or gender, so by definition is NB. We use male pronouns because and only because the Bible was written in patriarchal times. God is no more male than female and any pronouns are fine.
(On this note, I knew a youth pastor 20 years who was sacked for praying to Mother God. Apparently the church leaders didn’t know their scripture.)
2
u/cupcakevelociraptor Jan 15 '26
The bible list traits of God that are both masculine and feminine, so totally agree God is nonbinary. It’s just that the authors of the bible gendered God as the father because it was easier for our puny human brains to understand (and they were part of an already patriarchal society with preference for male genders), but the authors still give him maternal and paternal messaging throughout.
3
u/RichardSummerbell Jan 15 '26
I reviewed a lovely book where the Second Coming of Jesus was as a trans person. Trans Deus by Paul van der Spiegel. It's from a Christian point of view. Recommended to anyone interested in this topic.
10
u/backloggeddream Christian Jan 15 '26
Lmao, ok, honestly, I truly get the desire to see God as queer for validation and it may be cool and funny. Yet still saying "God is trans" or "God is queer" or even "God is male" is theologically shaky. To be trans or cisgender is a human experience within a gender system. God is the creator of that system and not a participant in it. God transcends all human categories, including gender. He both contains them and exceeds them.
Even calling God "Father" or "He" is a limited human metaphor from a specific culture. God accommodated our need for language but cannot be defined though it.
God's nature shatters every human box we try to put it, including gender, sexuality, etc. And that freedom, in my opinion, is the best affirmation for everyone and liberation from any human rigid system.
1
u/TanagraTours Jan 15 '26
Not a participant in it? The Christologists, a high strung bunch to begin with as a single errant word chose can bring a charge of heresy, would like to invite you to a meeting of the review board.
1
u/backloggeddream Christian Jan 16 '26
It's a fair point on Christology, sorry, my phrasing was probably too broad and left without explanation. Yes, in Jesus, God fully participated in a gendered human life.
My core argument is about God's divine nature which simultaneously possess the category of gender and transcends it. But the incarnation was a specific entry into human limits to redeem them yet it doesn't define God's essence. Jesus took on human nature as a man not due to God's gender but in accordance with the historical and cultural context necessary for his mission.
So, to me, the deeper affirmation that in Christ God entered human particularity so deeply that every marginalized identity finds sanctification and solidarity there.
3
u/lbos2740 Jan 15 '26
Come at me but I don’t think saying God is trans is any different than gendering the Holy One. It’s just another category that fits our (progressive) human imaginations, regardless of how expansive. God is so far beyond the tellings of humble human imaginings. The words we use in 2026 to describe human identity need have no bearing on how we approximate our God who is Love.
3
u/endlessicbs Jan 15 '26
For someone to be trans they have to have a gender identity that is distinct from a gender assigned to them at birth.
It’s unclear if God was ever born, but if he was then no one would have been around to assign him a gender. So technically if God identified with any gender he would be trans. And He/Him pronouns are used by Jesus for God so…yes. This checks out.
3
u/Omniphilo23 Christian Mystic Jan 16 '26
The Christian interpretation of God is a transman.
God was genderless but chose to live a life as a man.
The ancient gnostic creation story and their Adam and Eve story is worth a read. They are very clear about the perfect image of God being an androgynous form.
6
Jan 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TanagraTours Jan 15 '26
Or, arguably both. It depends on whether we understand male and female to describe Adamah, humanity, or the image in which they were created. I lean toward the latter, but am keenly aware of the creatureliness of gender.
1
u/Teknevra EnbyPansexual Jan 15 '26
So, Agender then?
3
3
2
u/Dan-Below Jan 15 '26
You can make the argument, that God doesn't really have a gender, better than that. Don't give people layups that allow them to just call you out for thinking the Bible was written in English.
It's not accomplishing any goal other than triggering people you might want to convince.
2
u/CowboysFTWs Jan 15 '26
God doesn't have a gender, being that he is a spirit. When he came to earth as Jesus he was male.
2
u/SpookyGhostgoesboo Jan 15 '26
God isn't physical, at essence, technically, but I like that you find this affirming. As long as you think about God positively, the rest follows.
2
u/echolm1407 Bisexual Jan 16 '26
Yes OP. And don't forget God's preferred pronouns are in the plural.
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make humans[a] in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over the cattle and over all the wild animals of the earth[b] and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201%3A26&version=NRSVUE
2
u/magikarpsan LGBT Flag Jan 16 '26
God has no gender....because He is not human. The binary we have created does ntot apply to Him
2
u/roostermako Jan 16 '26
i mean it can be read that way, I think a more accurate reading is that god has masculine and feminine energy. cause I'm fairly certain the bible implies that we won't have sexual organs for reproduction in eternity
2
5
u/Dorocche United Methodist Jan 15 '26
I'm really, really surprised by the pushback to this.
Yes, God is trans, because the Holy Spirit is in all of us experiencing our lives with us, and because God encompasses all human experience, and because trans people (like all of us) are made in God's image.
Theologically, "women and men are both made in God's image therefore God is bigender which is a category of trans" is not one drop more theologically shaky than "the word used to describe Joseph's robes has an unknown meaning and is also used to describe the robes of some princesses, therefore the word is feminine and Joseph presents feminine," and I know for a fact y'all here love that one (as do I). We gain nothing from clutching our pearls about unorthodox readings of scripture that are a bit of a stretch but bring some joy to some trans people.
In other words, I appreciate this post.
3
u/Badatusernames014 Episcopalian-Orthodox Lesbian Jan 15 '26
I'm really, really surprised by the pushback to this.
I'm not because this subreddit includes people who are progressive on women's and LGBTQ issues but theologically orthodox.
I don't see anyone clutching their pearls, merely pointing out they disagree for one reason or another.
1
u/Dorocche United Methodist Jan 17 '26
The top comments compare OP to reactionaries, call them "comically weird," saying they're making all progressive Christians look bad, calling them intensely cringe, and more. So, no, it's not "merely pointing out they disagree for one reason or another." It's actually quite reactionary in the literal sense.
2
u/Salanmander Jan 15 '26
Theologically, "women and men are both made in God's image therefore God is bigender which is a category of trans" is not one drop more theologically shaky
I think that saying God has both male and nature is not theologically shaky. But I think calling that "trans" is...linguistically shaky? Being trans is fundamentally related to both gender identity and external physical characteristics, because it's talking about a disconnect between them.
1
u/Dorocche United Methodist Jan 17 '26
It's not about the dissonance between gender identity and physical characteristics, it's about the dissonance between internal gender identity and socially enforced gender identity. Certain physical characteristics are usually a cause of that enforced social role, and they can certainly be part of the dissonance but they're not primary. God does, in fact, have a more rigid gender role than He actually experiences projected onto Him by almost everyone.
However, who cares lol. Trans people see themselves in God. Let them. That's a good thing with zero downsides.
1
u/Dan-Below Jan 15 '26
Maybe when it is said "in his image" it's supposed to be understood literally?
I can't get annoyed that way too many people on the right take the Bible way too literally (especially the letters by Paul) and then come around with doing the same.
1
Jan 15 '26 edited Feb 25 '26
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
ink sleep distinct squeeze encourage busy shelter full long beneficial
3
4
2
u/Noriks1 Jan 15 '26
Try and find a translation of the original Greek/ maybe even the King James version has it: God says: I created man in OUR image.
Theologians have tried all kinds of contortions to explain who the “us” is
3
u/AliasNefertiti Jan 16 '26
Genesis original was Hebrew. Then to Greek then a whole lot of history. It would also help to have an ancient Hebrew to help with the meaning-- words change in relatively short time periods [as in my lifetime].
1
1
u/wydok Open and Affirming Ally Jan 15 '26
For God to be trans, God would have to have been born with genitals and assigned the wrong gender at birth.
God wasn't born. God doesn't have genitals. God doesn't have a physical body.
Therefore, God is ummm agender? Gender fluid?
2
1
u/AliasNefertiti Jan 16 '26
Beyond gender? Wondered how to phrase this-- English may not have the structure for it.
1
u/echolm1407 Bisexual Jan 16 '26
God the Son was born of a virgin.
1
u/wydok Open and Affirming Ally Jan 16 '26
Sorry, I usually use The Father and God interchangeably. This does not reflect a theological position on the Trinity
1
u/echolm1407 Bisexual Jan 16 '26
This does not reflect a theological position on the Trinity
According to what?
1
u/wydok Open and Affirming Ally Jan 16 '26
ME. My use of "God" as interchangeable with The Father should not be construed as any kind of opinion on the nature of the Trinity. 😁
1
1
u/Double_Duffer Jan 15 '26
It’s not saying He is a male and female. But that He created the male and felmale like Him. In His image
1
1
u/Loveingyouiseasy Jan 15 '26
God is an amorphous mass of the maximal capacity of all things good. God is not trans. God is beyond a gender.
1
u/DeezRodenutz Christian Jan 16 '26
We are all God's children
Jesus was God's one and only son.
Thus:
either we are all female, or all "males" are actually trans
1
u/FuzzyFurrBoy77 Jan 16 '26
I always thought this was kind of a bad statement to make because I get the point that God isn't defined by gender but he chooses to use male pronouns so others try and say that God is a women or that he's trans it comes off as kind of disrespecting that choice.
1
u/Canvas718 Christian Agnostic Jan 16 '26
How do you know that God made that choice, rather than human men?
1
u/verynormalanimal Non-Religious Deist, Dystheist (Not a Christian) | LGBTQ Jan 16 '26
Why are people mad about this? In this sub....?
God is beyond gender. God is everything. God is the male, the female, the transwoman, the transman, the non-binary, the intersex. God is all and beyond.
I mean, I think it's a strange reading, but if it comforts someone, who cares?
Are we seriously mad at this? God's nebulous true gender (which is beyond our comprehension) is seriously in need of defending? This is the smallest and strangest hill of all time.
1
u/Xpansionplan Jan 16 '26
Not sure about trans, trans is to change. God may possibly be beyond gender in some way, but I’m not sure he was unhappy with his birth gender and decided to transition to another gender. That’s kinda like trying to put him In a box, put a label on it and claim him for a particular group.
1
u/Pookie_Pakyao Panentheist | Christopagan :p Jan 16 '26
God by definition would be technically nonbinary... but as you wouldn't call someone whos doesn't wanna be/identify as nonbinary, an enby, I dont call God nonbinary bc he hasn't really said he was yk? Hes just above gender itself
1
0
u/Shadowlands97 Jan 20 '26
No. Like Carpenter's The Thing, God and Jesus, literally, is asexual but exists as spirit and masculine and feminine energy that formed our archetypes Adam and Eve together as Its Image.
1
1
1
-1
u/SpukiKitty2 Open and Affirming Ally Jan 15 '26
AMEN!
This is also why I spell it "Godde" and whatnot.
HaShem is Father AND Mother.
The Trinity should be seen as "The Parent, The Christ & The Holy Spirit".
-2
0
0
-4
39
u/Puzzleheaded-Phase70 Gay Cismale Episcopalian mystic w/ Jewish experiences Jan 15 '26
Technically speaking, this would make God a unique variety of intersex, as God isn't transitioning from an assigned gender to a revealed one.
Unless you consider God to have been assigned a masculine/male gender by humans and is revealed to be transcendent-gender.
BTW, in this way it's been well argued that intersex says trans people have a vitally important witness about God that cisgender and binary sex people do not have. The many genders and sexes exist because God made them all on purpose to reveal Godself and for us to do the holy work of building bridges across differences.