Nouns

have Gender People have Sex

I write to the WNY Deputation to the 77th General Convention with my concerns about the choice to change the term "same-sex" to "same-gender", a misappropriation of the word gender and a confusion for those who struggle with gender identity, a wholly different issue than sexual orientation. Although the words gender and sex both have the sense the state of being male or female, they are typically used in different ways: sex tends to refer to biological differences, while gender tends to refer to socialization differences enforced through culture. Sex is culturally and legally considered to be a biologically binary trait (even intersexed persons are required to choose M or F). Gender identity and/or expression, Masculine or Feminine, is culturally understood to be a continuum.1 It's understandable when people get these traits mixed up, but its important to understand the difference between what you're born with, how you feel, how you feel about another person. As we look at the issue at hand, the legal and cultural distiction that is involved is the legal biological sex of the parties involved in marriage. Legally and culturally there is little struggle, for example, with a marriage between a feminine man and a feminine woman (e.g.: same-gendered). Legally and culturally there is little struggle with a marriage between a person of bisexual orientation and someone of the opposite biological sex. So too with trans-sexual persons. This is is not an issue of gender, but of presenting biological sex. We need to stop speaking of "same-gender" marriage, when in reality we mean same-sex marriage. Despite claims of using the word gender to support the radical inclusion of all persons,2 I would posit that the true reason is the ubiqitous cultural discomfort with sex, to the point that even mentioning sex becomes an issue. If you chuckled when hearing/reading the title of this letter, perhaps discomfited by double entendre of people have sex, then you are a living illustration of my point. If this is true, then dishonor falls upon The Episcopal Churuch for bowing to shame in its treatment of sexuality. But perhaps the root problem in this whole issue is the use of same, since this reinforces an understanding of duality of both sexuality and gender. Perhaps we need to to stop assigning labels to people based upon peoples sexual or gender orientation and simply provide pastoral resources and sacramental rites for committed couples, without distiction of label. I do realize that my words and concerns are reflected by Ecclesiastes 2:11b: What futility it all was, what chasing after the wind! There is nothing to be gained under the sun., yet I thank you for any consideration and thoughtful response my words may have stirred. Respectfully, The Revd Thomas M. Broad

1 For more on the Genderbread Person, see http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/01/the-genderbread-person/ 2 In addition to questions about the term marriage, we received many comments about the terms gender and sex. Following the wording of Resolution 2009-C056, we have used the term same-gender rather than same-sex to describe these relationships. Previous General Convention resolutions, along with the diocesan resources we have collected, are not consistent in their choice of terminology. This is more than a linguistic question. As the Commission has worked on these resources, we acknowledged but did not address the complexity of contemporary social and academic conversations about the categories of sex and gender. The pastoral resources for preparation of couples prior to a liturgy of blessing offer ways to work with individuals who identify themselves as bisexual or transgender. The resources expect that a bisexual or transgender couple who seeks the Churchs blessing of their relationship will commit to monogamy and lifelong faithfulness, the same commitment asked of every other same-gender and different-gender couple. [Report to the 77th General Convention, p.187]