| Original Full Text | “In The Name Of The Fear, The Shame & The Hegemonic Guilt:”A SIRmon From Trans Christian Men To The ChurchBy:Emery Levi LangilleA Thesis Submitted toSaint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotiain Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree ofMasters of Women & Gender StudiesApril, 2024—Halifax, Nova ScotiaCopyright—Emery Levi Langille, 2024Approved: Dr. Sailaja KrishnamurtiSupervisorApproved: Prof. Cooper Lee BombardierSecond ReaderApproved: Dr. Lindsay MacumberExternal ExaminerDate: April 23, 2024Abstract“In The Name of The Fear, The Shame & The Hegemonic Guilt:”A SIRmon From Trans Christian Men To The ChurchBy: Emery Levi LangilleWith a resurgence of anti-LGBTQIA+ propaganda in Canada, this thesis addresses the source ofa long history of hatred of trans people in conservative Christian communities, and the beliefthat trans and Christian identities are mutually exclusive. The current dominant narrativeaddressing anti-trans rhetoric focuses on the implications of normative masculinity andcombating its evolution into "toxic masculinity" within the sex/gender system. Vaticandocuments are prime sources of reinforcement of "toxic masculinity" in both Christian andsecular Western society. A language shift from toxicity to hegemony guides my exploration ofhegemonic Catholic theology and its roots in hegemonic gender ideology. The goal of thisresearch is to combat the weaponization of Christianity against LGBTQIA+ communities,particularly trans communities, by dismantling its weaponry of fear, shame, and guilt. Anarrative analysis of two trans Christian men’s memoirs—My Name is Brett: Truths From aTrans Christian (2015) by Brett Ray, and Trans Boomer: My Journey From Female to Male(2015) by Lee Jay—uses a mixed theoretical framework of queer theology, intersectionality,transfeminism, body theology, and Black theology to deconstruct personal experiences ofintegration and tension living in the liminal space of trans-Christian identity. Ray and Jay’smemoirs show that, not only are trans men and Christianity not mutually exclusive, but the(Catholic) Church can learn and strengthen their collective relationship with God by coming toknow and love God’s trans children. There is no theological justification for anti-trans rhetoric.Date: April 23, 2024Table of ContentsAcknowledgments...........................................................................................................................viCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................11. Locating the Researcher & Chapter Breakdown.................................................................8CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW1. Gender Norms & Hegemonic Masculinity.........................................................................12a. Hegemonic ("Toxic") Masculinity & Trans/Cisgender Hierarchies.....................13b. "Toxic" Masculinity: In Three Perspectives..........................................................17c. Language Shift.......................................................................................................232. Hegemonic ("Toxic") Theology: Who Uses It and How?..................................................26a. “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Churchon the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”.....................................................28b. “Male & Female, He Created Them: Towards a Pathof Dialogue on the Question of Gender Theory”...................................................323. Traditional Catholic Hegemonic Masculinity...................................................................404. LGBTQIA+-Affirming Catholic Theology.........................................................................445. Crisis vs. Transformation of Masculinity in Catholicism..................................................456. Auto-Biographical Life Writing: Trans Memoirs..............................................................467. The Western Hegemonic Trans Narrative........................................................................47CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY &METHODS1. Queer Theology..................................................................................................................502. Intersectional Feminist Theory.........................................................................................613. Transfeminist Theory........................................................................................................634. Theological Intersection Between Disability & Racea. Body Theology.......................................................................................................65b. Black Theology......................................................................................................665. Methods—Narrative Analysis:a. Challenging & Deconstructing Gender &Theological Hegemony Through Memoir.............................................................68b. Data Selection.........................................................................................................71c. Memoir Analysis Questions...................................................................................72CHAPTER 4: MEMOIR DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS1. Discussion..........................................................................................................................74a. My Name is Brett: Truths from a Trans Christian by Brett Ray........................77b. Trans Boomer: A Memoir of My Journey from Female to Male by Lee Jay......872. Analysisa. Brett Ray: Hegemonic Theology / Gender Ideology - Tenet #1-4, +6.................98b. Lee Jay: Hegemonic Theology / Gender Ideology - Tenet #1-6.........................109CHAPTER 5: SELF-EXPLORATION OF FAITH & (TRANS)MASCULINITY1. Trial & Tribulation:My Transition.................................................................................1272. Happiness Over Safety by E. Levi Langille.....................................................................133CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION1. Summary of Narrative Analysis: Insights & Limitations................................................1372. Current Implications.......................................................................................................1403. Catholic Counter-Hegemonic Masculinity & What I Want Parents to Know................1434. Messages to My Trans, Christian & Trans Christian Community..................................144References.....................................................................................................................................147Acknowledgements“And if I have prophetic powers,and understand all mysteriesand all knowledge,and if I have all faith,so as to remove mountains,but do not have love,I am nothing”(1 Cor. 13:2).I would like to thank my committee members for going above and beyond to help me publishthis project that I am so passionate about; It is time to put this process into praxis, and thisdegree into my community.Thank you to Saint Mary’s and Mount Saint Vincent’s Women & Gender Studies programcoordinators and faculty; WGST provided the perfect field to bring my lived experience intovaluable research.Thank you to Brett Ray and Lee Jay for sharing your stories with the world. It was an honor towitness your vulnerability, humility, strength, and tenacity, and if I never get the chance to sayso in person: Bless you, my trans brothers.Thank you to my loving partner who never gave up and stood by me through countless days andnights of writing, working, sick days and burn outs, but most importantly, stood by my decisionto medically transition during all this, so I could proudly publish as the man they know me to be.Imust thank our furry friend who stayed loyal to the Saint Mary’s community until the veryend—Carlton (aka Snuggleton)—2013 ~ 2023). You brought us comfort in hard times, lovingunconditionally (with just a hint of attitude) regardless of gender, sexuality, race, religion, orability. You were no ordinary cat, and you will be sorely missed, l’il buddy.Finally, I give thanks to my God who—despite certain people weaponizing my faith againstme—has never left my side. I should not be here today with all the close calls thus far, but I am.The only explanation I have? I was found before I was lost, I was yours before I was not. Amen.CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTIONThere has been a recent resurgence in anti-trans/queer hate in Canada, displayed vianation-wide hate rallies that are fueled by gross misinformation. This anti-trans movement isattempting to reverse the rights and freedoms my elder LGBTQIA+ community members havefought for since the late 1960s. These rallies are predominantly led by groups likeAction4Canada andHands Off Our Kids who organized the One Million March For Childrenwhich claim to be religious or represent religious communities, particularly Muslim, Sikh, andChristian families with young children. Canadian anti-LGBTQIA+ organizers from Neo-Nazigroups likeWhite Lives Matter (white supremacist, anti-immigration movement), the CanadianNationalist Party (white nationalist political organization), Save Canada (teen-ledanti-LGBTQIA+ in children’s spaces organization), and Active Club Canada (‘whites-only’fitness/"activist" network)—each with growing chapters across the country (anti-hate.ca,2023)—have succeeded at convincing parents, and adults without children, thatLGBTQIA+-inclusive information does not belong in schools—or in a "safe, normal society" ingeneral—but religion does because a distorted interpretation of "children’s innocence" has beenweaponized against any possibility for LGBTQIA+-faith integration/co-existence.This attempt to place LGBTQIA+ people as outsiders to religious communities hits hardfor me. I carry years of experience as a closeted, queer trans man in the Catholic Church, andconverted to the United Church shortly before coming to accept my true self. Unfortunately,being one’s true self as a trans person in Canada’s social climate today can mean anything fromdiscriminatory hiring practices—including Ontario Baptist pastor, Junia Joplin being fired forcoming out during a Pride month sermon (Neustaeter, 2020)—to violent hate crimes.Anti-trans hate rhetoric is becoming so pervasive and dangerous that the IntegratedTerrorism Assessment Centre (ITAC) and Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)continue to monitor and conduct reviews of anti-trans organizations—including Action4Canada—and are warning Canadians of the potential threats this could pose to national security. CSISspokesperson, Eric Balsam provided the following statement to CBC:‘CSIS assesses that exposure to groups and individuals espousing anti-gender extremistrhetoric could…encourage serious violence against the 2SLGBTQI+ community, oragainst those…viewed as supporters of pro-gender ideology policies and events…theecosystem of violent rhetoric within the anti-gender movement, compounded with otherextreme worldviews, can lead to serious violence.’ (Balsam qtd. in Tunney, 2024)CSIS’ wording is problematic1; however, the threat they are trying to warn Canadians of is real.The ‘compounding with other extreme worldviews’ Balsam is referring to includes the stronglink between anti-trans ideology and white supremacy, hence why most organizations leadingthe resurgence of the anti-trans movement are neo-Nazi/white supremacist groups.In addition to Balsam’s reference to white supremacy colliding with anti-trans hate,ITAC representatives refer to the ‘compounding extreme worldview’ of religious extremists,saying “those who embrace religiously motivated violent extremism in Canada continue ‘to viewmembers of the 2SLGBTQ community as desirable targets.’” Action4Canada and the OneMillion March for Children continue to recruit support from both white supremacists andvarious religious communities. Despite the wave of contradictions played out at their"anti-gender ideology" protests, i.e., Islamo/Sikh/xenophobic, white supremacist neo-Nazisrallying on the same side as Muslim and Sikh racialized immigrants, these organizationscontinue to garner more recruits to spread disinformation. While hateful people do not alwaysresort to physical violence, it is only a matter of time before some decide to take "inspiration"from the Pulse nightclub tragedy in 2016 to "get their message across." With my positionality asa trans man with white privilege and a psychological disability, I experience the compounding1 I would argue that CSIS should replace the term ‘anti-gender’ with ‘anti-trans,’ and ‘pro-gender ideology’with ‘gender-affirming’ to more accurately describe this culture war. Use of inaccurate terminology,regardless of intention, misreports these very serious threats to LGBTQIA+ communities, and reinforcesanti-LGBTQIA+ groups’ misuse of terminology to further their hateful propaganda/recruitment.2factor of ableism to the dangers faced by trans people and their supporters, both at the pro-transcounter-protests and in their daily lives.In this context, the goal of this thesis is to combat the weaponization of Christian faith inconjunction with racial and ableist hate against LGBTQIA+ communities across Canada,particularly the trans community, by deconstructing the religious claims at the foundation oftheir campaigns through which they attempt to spread fear of the unknown via disinformation,shame those who do not align with their worldview, impose guilt onto those who challenge thatfear and deny to feel any shame for living a life that is authentic to them. To begin thisdeconstruction, I will delve into hegemonic gender ideology and its roots in hegemonic Christiantheology. Much of Christian theology is historically, and currently, steeped in male supremacyover female subservience; this has proven to be true of my experiences when presenting asfemale within Christian institutions. I analyze the memoirs of two trans men—Brett Ray’sMyName is Brett: Truths from a Trans Christian (2015) and Lee Jay’s Trans Boomer: A Memoirof My Journey from Female to Male (2015)—who grew up in different Christian sects andgenerations. Through my reading of these texts and examination of traditional Christiantheology, I challenge the normalization of hegemonic gender ideology by inviting readers,especially anti-queer/trans or unsure Christians, to critically consider the following questions:1.) Where, specifically, do you draw your beliefs from—holy texts, fellow churchparishioners, family members, a priest, minister, deacon, Brother, nun, bishop,archbishop, the Pope/Vatican, and/or elsewhere?2.) Are your beliefs guided by individuals in your personal Christian community, orby the overarching doctrine of the Church, and if it is the latter, what gives thoseworking at the State level, e.g., the Vatican, more credibility to shape beliefs inyour eyes than someone not ordained/appointed in the Church? Whotaught/influenced those religious leaders’ beliefs?33.) What are these sources’ specific reasons for holding an anti-queer/transideological position?4.) Have you ever questioned how others within your own congregation, or othercongregations, may interpret the same sources differently?5.) Have you actively listened to other Christians with a variety of lived experiencesand interpretations of scripture?6.) Have you ever approached your faith from other theological perspectives nottaught by your sources? For example, were you aware of the existence of differenttheologies such as queer, body, and Black theologies?Using Brett and Lee’s narratives, I show that not only is queer/trans faith integrationpossible, but also that embracing trans identities can expand and strengthen one’s personalrelationship with God and within the collective Christian community if the community openstheir hearts to this transformation. I believe that any church that welcomes and actively engageswith the perspectives given in this research will be surprised by how many queer/transChristians will walk through their doors, or already have.In an article on trans people’s reflections on identity and Christian faith, Benson et al.discuss an interview a Christian trans woman, Amy, who sums up a renewed interpretation ofscripture that is trans-affirming, and describes how some Christians resist it: “Unfortunately,many people are stuck with that [trans-exclusionary] view of scripture…It limits their view of theworld. It limits their view of God” (Benson et al., 2018). Like Amy, I no longer adhere to Catholicdoctrine that preaches of faith and queer/trans identity as mutually exclusive based on someCatholic’s inability to recognize queer/trans people as evidence of God’s boundless creativecapacity. It has been life-changing to learn of these trans/queer-inclusive interpretations of theBible, such as all the meaningful, celebrated re-naming, particularly the story of Simon beingrenamed Peter because Jesus saw the good in him when no one else did until after Jesus’4crucifixion, when Peter continued Jesus’ ministry for the rest of his life (John 1:42). I see thisnow as a trans-affirming Bible passage because his birth name, Simon, means “one who hears,”which could refer to him truly hearing and listening to Jesus’ ministry of love for all humankind.Jesus knew He could trust him with His message and gave him the new name of Peter, meaning“like rock/stone,” to acknowledge this level of trust before even Peter was able to see this inhimself. And when Jesus’ died, Peter transformed his life to become closer to his most authenticself and helped those around him to do the same. This is not just a story to get people to believein God; it is a story meant to celebrate life’s transitions and to live a life of purposeful happinessinstead of remaining limited to "the way things have always been."The Bible verse that is most often weaponized to exclude and demean trans people’s veryexistence is: “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; maleand female, He created them” (Gen. 1:27). This is often quoted as a stand-alone verse, withoutthe context that is given thereafter: “Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitfuland multiply; fill the earth’” (Gen. 1:28). God may have begun with male and female, but Theyalso said to ‘[b]e fruitful and multiply; fill the earth,’ and this direction is not elaborated on. So,it is possible God meant to multiply in types of people and ways of living, not solely procreation.Unfortunately, there are those who use this follow-up verse to say trans men and trans womenare not legitimately men and women because they cannot reproduce in the "natural" way Godintended for their birth sex and are therefore acting against God’s Word.This interpretation is the one that is most loudly heard from anti-trans protesters,including those from the One Million March for Children and endorsed by the Campaign LifeCoalition (Canadian partner to Coalition Life, US). In an endorsement statement, CLC’s nationalpresident, Jeff Gunnarson explained that the goal of the parental rights protests was to:safeguard all children from the propaganda of LGBT activists, and their gender-bendingideologies, in the education system. To make sure no child is ever exposed to explicit5sexual content...nor the corrosive suggestion that they might be 'trapped in the wrongbody' and should consider whether he or she is 'transgendered'…I’m so grateful to Godthat...National Pride Flag Walk-Out Day was...a huge success, but it seems like that dayof action helped to set in motion something even bigger. (Gunnarson, 2023)The Walk-Out Day Gunnarson is referring to is the CLC’s first annual National Pride FlagWalk-Out (2023) where parents were encouraged by Hands Off Our Kids to keep their kidshome from school on June 1—the day most Canadian schools raise the Pride flag—in protest of"LGBT indoctrination and exploitation" in the classroom. Labeling gender affirmation as a'corrosive suggestion,' followed by thanking God for success in keeping thousands of kids homefrom school on a day intended to support LGBTQIA+ youth, comes from a mentality that islargely the result of non-gender-affirming Christian indoctrination—what the CLC is builton—that uses Bible verses like Genesis 1:27-8 to justify scaring trans youth back into the closet.Genesis 1:27-8 is also the Bible verse that anti-trans Christian parents in Alberta, use toargue that the "parental rights" policy put in place by Alberta premier, Danielle Smith, are fortheir "child’s safety." The new policy makes it compulsory for a teacher to notify and obtainconsent from parents/guardians when their child under 16 wants to go by a different name orpronoun in the classroom, and to provide notification, with or without their consent, regarding16 and 17-year-old children. Unsurprisingly, CLC president Jeff Gunnarson commendedPremier Smith for this policy that “will go a long way in protecting children and safeguarding theunreplaceable parent-child relationship” (Gunnarson qtd. in Amundson, 2024). ‘Safe-guarding’the ‘unreplaceable parent-child relationship’ echoes anti-trans "denaturalization" sentimentsfrom the Catholic Congregation for Education under Vatican "guidance" (discussed on page 28).Hands Off Our Kids are being deliberately mis-informed by people like Mr. Gunnarson,as well as anonymous, neo-Nazi anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric steeped in an ideology that isinherently anti-femininity. Parents, especially fathers of Abrahamic faith-based households, are6being encouraged to avoid exhibiting any expression of femininity, and to immediately shutdown any perceived threat to their ability to do so. This fear is then extended to how they raisetheir children. When these fathers hear that LGBTQIA+-related information is being shared intheir children’s classroom, their instant reaction will be that of hostility to the alleged "culturalfeminization" of all aspects of Canadian life, but particularly, the education system of their ownchildren’s school(s). The fear that they are losing control of their children if the relevant sect ofthe "Mommy State"—i.e., the school board—is permitted to teach their children supposedly"feminine values" associated with second wave feminism, including weakness and softness,which alt-right groups have them believing to be synonymous with being part of, or supporting,the LGBTQIA+ community. Any topic with ambiguity or nuance is seen as indecisive andconfusing* (to the parents, not their children*) and therefore, effeminate. LGBTQIA+-inclusivecurriculum, is deemed to be too nuanced and unpredictable, and therefore, does not belong in atraditional learning environment of "definitive, objective, black-and-white subjects" like mathand science. And yet, many of these fathers of Abrahamic faith have no problem with theirreligion being taught in schools, a subject with an abundance of nuance and subjectivity.I can no longer ignore the human ignorance and damaging social constructs imposedonto the Christian faith by my former Catholic parish, and alt-right groups now weaponizing myfaith for anti-LGBTQIA+ hate rally recruitment that does hurt me, but more importantly, hurtsyounger, more vulnerable LGBTQIA+ youth still trapped under non-affirming roofs. Theserealizations have revealed stark differences between how I understand my personal relationshipto God, the institutionalization of Christianity, and the expected but often false correlationbetween the two, something Christians affiliating with Action4Canada and Hands Off Our Kidswould benefit from critically considering. Travis, a trans man, shares this experience of falsecorrelation: “The more I realized that I don’t worship my church and…the members of mychurch…I worship God, the better I consolidate those ideas about gender and religion” (Bensonet al., 2018). This statement resonates with me on a piercing level; I worship God, not my7church. As a Christian trans man, I do not need any religion or person’s approval on how Ipractice my faith, or my existence as both trans and Christian, nor does anyone else.Coming to this realization took years of painful isolation from any supportive faithcommunity. It took years of bouncing from no religion to Buddhism, back to no religion, then toWicca, back to no religion, and in those periods of no faith whatsoever, contemplatingandattempting suicide because my life had no direction, no support network, and was chalked full oftraumas I had mistaken for my own sins from years of hateful Catholic indoctrination. It was notuntil I met my best friend, turned love of my life, six years ago that I finally saw my first glimpseof faith without fear, belief without shame, and love without the guilt my childhood taught me tofeel whenever I "asked too much of someone," followed by giving too much of myself.I have rekindled not only my faith in God, but myself. I have learned the dishearteningtruth through loving a partner who is a racialized, queer, gender fluid, neurodivergent, disabledimmigrant, that none of these things should dictate a person’s right to a dignified life, but still dobecause of compounding waves of hatred. This thesis is personal, the impacts of what I write willbe personal, and lives are on the line with every line, every second you read this. If that makesyou uncomfortable, good. It should be uncomfortable. I will never change the mind of everyanti-trans person, but I can help change the social landscape to one where intersectionaltrans-affirmation is no longer a radical action, but a cultural norm.Locating the ResearcherBefore diving into my mission of intersectional, Christian trans-affirmation, let me fullyintroduce myself. Knowing where the researcher is positioned in all social categorizations is vitalto providing full transparency and integrity as an academic who wants to bring research into thecommunities in which I am fighting for. I entered this program with the initial intent to focus onexperiences of closeted lesbians growing up in the Catholic Church, and the sexual violenceexperienced by this demographic. However, since becoming more informed on issues of gender8and sexuality, I have come to the realization that I am not, and was not, a lesbian. I was assignedfemale at birth, but that assignment does not align with my gender identity; I am a queer transman. Trans and queer are just two ways I articulate my identity. At the time of publishing, I am29, white, able-bodied, psychologically disabled, and a multiple sexual assault survivor, bornand raised in a middle class, Roman Catholic household in rural Nova Scotia, Canada.CHAPTER BREAKDOWNIn chapter two, I delve into my literature review in which I discuss gender norms,hegemonic and normative masculinity, and trans-cisgender hierarchies. This is followed bybreaking down the origins and mainstream popularization of toxic masculinity as a strategic,political buzzword conceptualized and incorrectly used synonymously with hegemonicmasculinity by conservative psychology and policy makers, mainstream and trans-exclusionaryradical feminists—often self-identified as gender critical feminists—and by trans feminists. Next,I illustrate the mainstreamed term toxic theology and, incorporating the proper distinctionbetween hegemony and toxicity, define and discuss what hegemonic theology is and who uses it,through two anti-LGBTQIA+ publicly available Vatican documents. This is followed by a briefrundown of the Vatican/Catholic leaders’ fabrication of the "crisis of masculinity" as opposed toa transformation of masculinity, and how that fear mongering materializes in Christiancommunities through strict adherence to traditional Catholic hegemonic masculinity in thefamily unit. Finally, I provide a succinct history of thewaves of trans life writing.In chapter three, I discuss feminist theories/theologies used in my analysis. First, Ireview the origins of queer theology from Patrick Cheng’s Radical Love: An Introduction toQueer Theology (2011), sources of queer theology—scripture, tradition, reason, andexperience—followed by strands of queer theology from the mid-1950s to present—apologetic,liberation, relational, and queer. Second, I provide a characterization of intersectional feministtheory as coined by Dr. Kimberlé Crenshaw (1990), and its principles and domains of power9expanded upon by Dill & Zambrana (2009), and Collins & Bilge (2016), respectively. Third, Ireview transfeminist theory using Sara Ahmed’s (2016) conceptualization of transfeminism as aresponse to the systemic ways marginalized peoples are attacked, and as diversity work, thinkingof gender, itself, as an institution of policing, passing, and power. I review transfeminism fromCristan Williams’ (2020) exploration of the ontological woman, wherein a sex-essentialistdiscourse is rigged to ensure authenticity is withheld from trans experiences. Fourth, I explorebody theology with Nancy Eiesland's (1994) connection between Jesus’ post-resurrectionwounds and disabled Christians’ relationship with the Divine, as well as Christian Fetherolf’srevelations of Christian teachings from disability communities. Lastly, I engage with Blacktheology as illustrated by Black theologian, James Cone’s connection between the inferiority ofBlack bodies and Jesus’ crucifixion, complemented by Black Womanist theologian, KellyDouglas’s stance on Black slaves developing a compassionate, comprehensive Christianity whenbarred from Eurocentric, formal theological education.Next, I discuss why I have chosen a narrative analysis of two memoirs written byChristian trans men—My Name is Brett: Truths from a Trans Christian (2015) by Brett Ray,and Trans Boomer: A Memoir of My Journey from Female to Male (2015) by Lee Jay. Iexamine how one can challenge and deconstruct gender and theological hegemony through thegenre of trans life-writing, via an exploration of authorship of self-identity (Enke, 2012),epistemological validity (Namaste, 2000), cultural intelligibility (Butler, 1990), andconstructively acknowledging and critiquing the evolution of the Western hegemonic trans lifenarrative (Vipond, 2019; Prosser, 1998). Lastly, I provide six questions I will be using in mynarrative analysis of Brett Ray and Lee Jay’s memoirs, corresponding with the six tenets of bothhegemonic gender ideology and hegemonic theology (see Figure 1, p. 25).In chapter four, I begin with Christian trans life writing as a counter-hegemonic transnarrative to the hegemonic trans narrative typically presented to the public—stories of seculartrans experiences—setting up my proposition of Brett and Lee’s memoirs as counter-hegemonic10trans narratives. I dive into Brett and Lee’s perceptions of their respective Christiandenominations growing up and developing understanding of their masculinity. I then apply mytheories/theologies to a narrative analysis by systematically pulling passages from their lifestories relevant to each tenet of hegemonic theology, followed by its corresponding tenet ofhegemonic gender ideology—tenets 1-4 and 6 are applicable to Brett’s story, and tenets 1-6 areapplicable to Lee’s (tenet application to Brett and Lee’s stories starts on pg. 98).In chapter five, I relate my analysis of Brett and Lee’s memoirs to my own personalexperiences within my journey from Roman Catholicism to United Christianity, and from"straight, cis female" presenting to an openly queer and trans man. I conclude my firsthandexperiences with an original poem encompassing my most recent feelings navigating the publicsphere as a queer trans man,Happiness Over Safety (Langille, 2024).In conclusion, I summarize the insights drawn from my analysis by illustrating how Brettand Lee’s experiences can be used to offer the Church/Christians guidance on developing adeeper connection to God and Their creation by opening their hearts and congregation to all ofGod’s beloved children through queer theology, intersectional feminist theory, transfeministtheory, body theology and Black theology. I explain some limitations of my researchsurrounding racialization, culture, and Christian denominations within trans life writing as awhite, Canadian, United, queer trans man. Finally, I divulge some current implications for myresearch in my own city and country, such as the recent nationwide anti-LGBTQIA+ ralliesweaponizing "children’s innocence" using hegemonic theology/gender ideology. I confront theirarguments to show their inherent hypocrisy, how they work against the word of God, and toinvite groups who are skeptical of trans-affirmation to reframe their notions of who God knowsto be His beloved children, followed by a message to my trans community and trans Christians.11CHAPTER 2—LITERATURE REVIEWThe following literature review will explore the three pillars of my research: hegemonic/toxicmasculinity, hegemonic/toxic theology, and the "crisis" vs transformation of masculinity debate.I will begin with a brief history of normative masculinity and hegemonic masculinity astheoretical concepts. Next, I will give a brief breakdown of toxicmasculinity, how it is usedinterchangeably with hegemonic masculinity, and conservative psychological and policymakers,’ mainstream and gender critical feminists,’ and transfeminists’ use of the term. I willthen provide my critique of the term toxic masculinity, arguing for a shift in language tohegemonic gender ideologies. Next, I will give a summary of what hegemonic (toxic) theology is,followed by who uses it and how. Subsequently, I will briefly explore the 'crisis' of masculinity vstransformation of masculinities’ debate between LGBTQIA+-affirming and non-affirmingChristian leaders and followers, and the motivations driving the "crisis" position relating to pastand current embodiments ofmasculinities. Finally, I will introduce the literary genre of lifewriting, its sub-genre of the trans memoir, the concept of transnormativity within thissub-genre, and Christian trans memoirs as examples of counter-trans/Christian narratives.GENDER NORMS & HEGEMONIC MASCULINITYNormative definitions of masculinity are purposefully used to set a general standard bywhich all expressions and identifications of masculinity are to be evaluated against, with someforms deemed correct, permissible, and normal in society but others deemed as incorrect,prohibited, abnormal, or deviant. Normative masculinity is taken as a universal truth that doesnot necessitate further questioning; as such, normative masculinity does not allow for nuance orcomplexities of gender. Dictionaries offer the simplest, normative definition of all concepts, withmasculinity typically defined as, “qualities or attributes regarded as characteristic of men,” “thequality or nature of the male sex: the quality, state, or degree of being masculine or manly,” or12“characteristics that are traditionally thought to be typical of or suitable for men”(Dictionary.com; Merriam-Webster.com; Cambridgedictionary.com). Across most dictionarysources, masculinity is vaguely defined as assumed characteristics associated with men. But howdo we know what characteristics, qualities or attributes are associated with men? And how dothese characteristics differ by culture, location, time, and religion?Gender theorists, Tristan Bridges and Michael Kimmel (2011) illustrate the waysmasculinity deviates from the assumed norm: historically (changes over time), cross-culturally(culturally specific), intra-psychically (changes over the course of one’s life), and contextually(within a given society and period of time). We cannot speak of masculinity as one static oruniversal concept. Masculinity scholars tend to speak ofmasculinities, in the plural, toencompass all the above factors and more. Kimmel & Bridges continue to explain how men &masculinity studies takes its lead from feminist studies on socially constructed facets of identity,aiming to “highlight both the collective privileges from which men as a group benefit as well asthe disadvantages that certain groups of men face” (Kimmel & Bridges, 2011). This is wheremasculinity studies and trans studies meet in their connections to hegemonic masculinity.Hegemonic ("Toxic") Masculinity & Trans/Cisgender HierarchiesReese Simkins, a professor of trans studies, urges us to consider socially constructedidentities, including gender, within discourses of power and oppression:Identities must both be recognized for what they challenge and for what theyreinscribe…[We must] continually interrogate how our own politics and identities impacton a multiplicity of individual subject positions that are not our own…We must begin byexamining how, and why, the hegemonic sex/gender system ascribes masculinity towhat it determines to be biological male bodies and femininity to what it determines tobe biological female bodies. (Simpkins qtd. in Scott-Dixon, 2006)13The power of the sex/gender system lies in maintaining two distinct categories of recognizablyfemale-bodied persons who will become feminine women and male-bodied persons who willbecome masculine men. This system is rooted in men/males/masculinities oppressingwomen/females/femininities and oppression of anyone who does not embodymen/males/masculinities, including cis women, but also, gay, racialized, poor, and disabledmen, trans (wo)men, and non-binary persons (Simpkins qtd. in Scott-Dixon, 2006). This dyadicrelationship of the sex/gender system is at the epistemic core of hegemonic masculinity.One of trans-inclusive feminists’ biggest goals is to break down oppositionalunderstandings of masculinity and femininity. To do this, we need to address the structure ofthe hierarchy of masculinities and ask where its power resides: “Power invests itself inbodies…discourses of power determine the possibilities of identity” (Simpkins qtd. inScott-Dixon, 2006). How we think is structured by power relations, and this governs themargins in which power can be challenged. This not only creates the binaries of man/woman,male/female, and masculine/feminine, it pre-determines who fits into each category, oftentimesbefore they are even born. A linear discourse of sex/gender requires an essentialist classificationsystem that codes those assigned-male-at-birth (AMAB) to become men and thoseassigned-female-at-birth (AFAB) to become women (Simpkins qtd. in Scott-Dixon, 2006).Masculinity and "becoming a man" mean different things depending on the cultural,historical, and geographical context. What does not change is the ever-present expectations tolive up to an "ideal/acceptable" form of masculinity. But who decides what is the ideal form ofmasculinity? In a Western context, this is dictated by those at the top of the masculinitieshierarchy: upper-class, white, straight, cisgender, able-bodied, formally educated men—thosewith the most socio-political power. This masculine hierarchy relies on “the existence of multiplecompeting masculinities that interact within a hierarchical framework [that] exposesmasculinity both as relational and as fragile—something which must be proven…In order to gain14legitimacy and higher standing in the masculine hierarchy, masculine beings compete againstone another in an ongoing way” (Simpkins qtd. in Scott-Dixon, 2006).There is also a phenomenon that trans woman Alaina Hardie calls, trans hierarchies oflegitimacy. From her experiences inside trans communities within the San Francisco Bay Area,Hardie shares her thoughts on this self-imposed ranking system that positions some transidentities as more valid than others. At the top of this hierarchy is post-operative, "passing,"conventionally "attractive" trans women, particularly male-to-females who are petite and thinwith feminine features and carriage, i.e., figure, posture, walk, mannerisms (Hardie qtd. inScott-Dixon, 2006). The main criteria to maintain the highest legitimacy in trans and ciscommunities is the ability to never disclose one’s transness, to have all gender-affirmingsurgeries, and to practice a strictly heteronormative sexuality, while avoiding anything thatcould suggest queerness. These were the trans folks who were believed to have the “greatestnatural right to call themselves women” (Hardie qtd. in Scott-Dixon, 2006). At the bottom arepre/non-operative, "non-passing," conventionally "unattractive" trans women, and lower thanthem, trans men who are seen as "lesbians in denial" or transitioning to "attain male privilege."The fear of being outed, regardless of one’s place within this hierarchy, is amplified evenmore in today’s increasingly violent and transphobic social climate. The connection betweendisclosure and one’s value and validity—in both trans and cisgender spaces—is a direct result ofinternalized trans and queer-phobia. It creates a social climate of us vs them, even within agroup that shares a common marginalization, and this only widens the divide between trans andcisgender men in the rat-race to "normal" or mainstream masculinity: “Be quiet. [Don’t] make afuss. Pass unnoticed” (Hardie qtd. in Scott-Dixon, 2006). This kind of in-fighting relates back toGayle Rubin’s charmed circle (1984). Rubin’s charmed circle diagram identifies:A hierarchy of types of sex, whereby some sex is treated as good, normal, natural, blessedand other sex is treated as bad, abnormal, unnatural, damned...The types of sex…within15the charmed circle are: heterosexual, married, monogamous, procreative,non-commercial, in pairs, in a relationship, same generation, in private, no porn, bodiesonly, vanilla…types of sex in the outer limits are homosexual, unmarried, promiscuous,non-procreative, commercial, alone, in groups, casual, cross-generational, in public,porn, with manufactured objects, sadomasochistic. (Rubin, 1984 in Jones, 2020)The ‘charmed circle’ in 1984 illustrated a sole focus on the hierarchy of sexuality amongcisgender people, and was inherently transphobic, racist, xenophobic and ableist. The ‘charmedcircle’ segregated trans people out of the hierarchy altogether because trans people were—andstill are— considered less likely to transfer across societal margins, i.e., "pass" for cisgender, toeven have their sexualities be socially permitted within sight of ‘the charmed circle.’Additionally, Rubin never mentioned how race, nationality, and (dis)ability factor intothe ‘charmed circle.’ It was not until Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term and popularized theconcept of ‘intersectionality’ (1990) that the academy saw an uptake of critiques and expansionupon the ‘charmed circle’ to intersectionally analyze hierarchies of sexuality within and betweendifferent communities. In 2024, not only are trans people and their rights under increasingattack from those occupying the center of the intersectional ‘charmed circle’—white, cisgender,able-bodied, natal citizen, Christian, married, monogamous, procreative, non-commercial, inpairs, in a relationship, same generation, in private, no pornography, bodies only and"vanilla"—but also from thosewithin the LGBTQIA+ community who are cisgender orcis-passing. The intra-group fighting is only getting worse for trans people, particularly thoseconsidered "non-cis passing," with the increase in anti-trans hate and resulting decrease in transpersons’ safety, as well as ally’s safety if they publicly support trans people. These internaltensions also include cis-het-passing trans people being queer phobic toward both cis and transnon-heterosexual people to maintain their "stealth" position in the charmed circle.16As Audre Lorde said: “The master’s tools can never dismantle the master’s house.” Weneed to create and utilize new tools of social change that allow us to not only dismantle themaster’s house but dismantle themaster/slave binarymindset itself. If hegemonic masculinityis themaster of the sex/gender system, then internalized transphobia is the Stockholm’ssyndrome of hegemonic masculinity. It is this relationship that hosts a breeding ground forgendered toxicity to pervade from the lowest to the highest positions of themasculinity/legitimacy hierarchy. This legitimacy hierarchy is perpetuated by internalization ofa phenomenon Kyle Scanlon calls biocentrism: “the assumption that people who match [theirassigned-sex-at-birth] ...are more 'real' and/or more 'normal' than those whoseassigned-sex-at-birth is incongruent with their gender identity” (Scanlon qtd. in Scott-Dixon,2006). Biocentrism can be internalized by both trans and cis people but, unfortunately, manytrans folks see this as the only path to climbing the podium of power in the sex/gender systemthat cis people benefit from. This use of the term biocentrism is new, but its implications wereomnipresent in Western society long before the term came into use by transfeminists. Thisgatekeeping of embodiment of (wo)manhood, in any regard, leads us to a discussion of what hasbeen popularly labeled—inaccurately, I will argue—toxic masculinity, through conservativepsychological and policy, and mainstream feminist and transfeminist lenses."Toxic" Masculinity Through a Conservative Psychological & Policy LensThe term toxic masculinity as an analytical concept originated in the 20th centurymythopoetic men’s movement of the 1980s, coined by Dr. Shepherd Bliss. Dr. Bliss, an armyveteran, psychology professor, and author of A Quiet Strength: Meditations on the MasculineSoul, first used the term toxic masculinity to attribute meaning to his late father’s “militarized,authoritarian masculinity” (Harrington, 2021). Bliss uses toxic masculinity as a medical termbecause, as he said in a 1990 interview with Daniel Gross, “like every sickness, toxic masculinityhas an antidote” (Gross, 1990). Moving into the 1990s and early 2000s, toxic masculinity17expanded from the men’s movement of the 1980s to self-help, academic, and policy literature.Family therapists like Dr. Frank Pittman argued that “men who lack adequate fathering pursueunrealistic cultural images of masculinity and feel a constant need to prove their manhood,” andDr. Steve Biddulph argued “boys need a strong bond with a father figure/male mentor to avoidbecoming toxically masculine men” (Pittman, 1994; Biddulph, 1997).The dominant discourse was clear and unchallenged: boys need the right kind ofmasculinity and only fathers can and should instill this masculinity in their sons. Consensusamong psychologists posited toxic masculinity as “culturally normative but curable throughengaging men with fatherhood…[for] masculine emotional development” (Harrington, 2021). In“Renewing the Sacred Vocation of Fathering,” Don Eberly, founder of the U.S. NationalFatherhood Initiative, attributed the cause for the Columbine shooting—and most massshootings—to single mothers and physically or emotionally absent fathers: “Young men badlyneed to see mature masculinity modeled out. Well-seasoned masculinity fundamentallytransforms the aggression of young males by capturing their masculine energy and directing ittoward socially constructive pursuits” (Eberly, 1999).By 2007, a psychosocial prescription for engaged fatherhood meshed perfectly with 21stcentury recommendations for heteronormative family life in a post-industrial, neoliberal society.Toxic masculinity was to blame for the gendered fallout of deindustrialization:masculineoccupational sectors disappearing and feminine service sectors expanding. An Irish family policyarticle argued for engaged fatherhood to “[tame] their wildness…to the extent that [fathers] canadjust to the discipline of domestic routines and remain with their children and partners and intheir families, as opposed to prison” (Ferguson & Hogan, 2004). Additionally, the U.S. 2006Thriving Families program for low-income, particularly minority parents strongly promotedheterosexual marriage and used fatherhood as a “civilizing influence on men” (Randles, 2013).Programs like these not only promoted heterosexual marriage and fatherhood, but also forced awhite supremacist family ideal onto racialized, low-income families, particularly Black and18Latino fathers. Toxic masculinity was, and often still is, equated with behaviors and attributes ofracially, economically marginalized men (Bhana, 2005).Toxic masculinity became a theoretical framework grounded in white supremacy used tojustify racist, classist views that portrayed non-white, low-income men as aggressive criminals,making them intrinsically bad fathers. Though this racist and classist use of a toxic masculinityframework was packaged as concern for "men’s well-being," it was a social power tool used byconservatives to keep racialized, low-income men in a subordinate position to the hegemonicmasculine ideal of whiteness and financial security (Harrington, 2021). It did not and does notreject the gender hierarchy or binary. Rather, it strengthens traditional male gender rolesthrough a “deficit perspective” of men (Dollahite et. al., 2002). Toxic masculinity, in thiscontext, was intended to reform (read: control) subordinated men, maintaining the hegemonicvision of the cis-heteronormative (i.e., nuclear) family."Toxic" Masculinity Through a Mainstream & Gender Critical Feminist LensIn contrast to a conservative policy lens, since around 2016, predominately whitefeminism uses toxic masculinity as a catch-all phrase for any behavior of men deemedmisogynistic, homophobic, or violent. Notable examples of this include many feminists’ critiquesof Donald Trumps’ deplorable behavior in the 2016 presidential election (i.e., Trumpism) andother high-profile men accused of sexual assault in the #Metoo movement. Instead of usingtoxic masculinity to control racialized, low-income men, white feminism paved a new path fortoxic masculinity to name and hold to account (mostly) white elite men for their abhorrentbehavior, a “frame for responding to resurgent masculinist right-wing politics” (Harrington,2021). Most feminist scholars fail to clearly define and operationalize toxic masculinity,providing examples of domination, aggression, and misogyny, but with no deeper analysis of theroot causes of these behaviors. Terry Kuper’s 2005 article on toxic masculinity is often cited asthe “most prominent scholarly usage of the concept,” (Sculos, 2017), establishing popular use of19toxic masculinity as a subset of hegemonic masculinity materializing in certain contexts, such asprisons or “bad neighborhoods” (Parent et al., 2019). The toxic/healthy masculinity binarydiscourse endures through feminist scholarship by virtue of repetitive citation, with a severe lackof feminist analysis beyond cliches—Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) being aprimary transgressor—excluding via subordination, complicity, and marginalization, all tools ofhegemonic masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). This is where mainstream feminismbranches into the sub-genre of gender critical feminism.Gender critical feminism “opposes the self-definition of trans people, arguing thatanyone born with a vagina is in its own oppressed sex class, while anyone born with a penis isautomatically an oppressor…gender is a system that exists solely to oppress women, which itdoes through the imposition of femininity on those AFAB” (Burns, 2019). Janice Raymond,professor emerita of women’s studies and medical ethics at the University of Massachusetts andauthor of The Transsexual Empire: Making of the She-Male (1979), asserts that "trans culture"is violence against women, and that "self-declared men" will always regret having a sex changeand detransition. Raymond’s beliefs derive from a gender critical lens that says eradicating maleprivilege is feminism’s main priority and that trans men are simply women, typically queer, whoare trying to escape from misogyny, gain male privilege, and transition out of gender oppression.Germaine Greer, one of the loudest voices of second wave feminism, provides anexample of gender critical feminists maintaining us vs. them oppositionality within thesex/gender system. In a BBC Newsnight segment, Greer gives the following response to KirstyWark asking what she thinks of Caitlyn Jenner winning GlamourWoman of the Year: “I thinkmisogyny plays a really big part in all of this, that a man who goes to these lengths will be abetter woman than someone who was just born a woman” (BBC Newsnight, 4:22-4:38). RachelParreñas’ contextualization of agency counters this use ofmisogyny: “A subject can never becompletely removed from the process of its constitution…[but] subjects intervene to shape theprocess and condition of their constitution” (Parreñas, 2001). Trans people cannot remove20themselves from a misogynistic society, but they can utilize agency via HRT, surgeries, and/orchanging their gender expression to affirm their gender to themselves and their affirming peers."Toxic" Masculinity Through a Transfeminist LensTransfeminists argue that creating new language simply expands the possibilities forAFAB people and frees them from the constraints imposed on them justified by essentialistunderstandings of womanhood that reduce women to anatomy and ability to conceive.Transfeminists move beyond the use of biology to justify gender-based oppression and holdwomen—cis and trans—to the same level of accountability as men for dismantling a patriarchalsociety. Mainstream and gender critical feminists often fail to recognize that anyone—regardlessof gender—can exhibit and perpetuate toxic gender performances. Simpkins explains that:since under hegemonic discourses of sex/gender, masculinity consolidates its privilegeby oppressing femininity, one of the quickest ways for trans masculine individuals tovalidate their masculinity is to engage in the oppression of femininity and participate inthe misogyny that the sex/gender system demands. (Simpkins qtd. in Scott-Dixon, 2006)Hence, anyone—trans masculine folks and cis women, included—can consolidate whateveramount of privilege they can by tearing down anything or anyone perceived as "too feminine,"and become an active participant in the same misogyny imposed on them. This grandpatriarchal narrative is upheld by forcing gender-non-confirming individuals to compete withone another for status and some semblance of power at the expense of others, even if that meansbeing crushed against the glass ceiling rather than breaking through it.What is means to "be a man" expands far beyond essentialist theorizations of masculinityto include those not expected to perform masculinity under a normative rubric: those notassigned male at birth, i.e., trans men, transmasculine people, and various other genderidentities embodied by those assigned-female-at-birth. In Trans/Forming Feminisms:21Trans/Feminist Voices Speak Out, Krista Scott-Dixon maintains that “heteronormativemasculinity…depends on the repeated rejection of characteristics associated with femininity,such as subservience. Men whose other social locations place them in subservient roles, such asracial and/or economic marginalization, must then produce ways to reassert or reinventmasculine dominance” (Scott-Dixon, 2006). This internalized fear of feminization is primebreeding ground forweaponization of masculinity. Homolar & Löfflmann provide anexplication of hypermasculine posturing and appealing to male anxieties: “Populist rhetoricfrom—and to—the right of the political spectrum relies on highly gendered scripts to build andmobilize political support by making abstract notions of insecurity feelable as a crisis andbetrayal of manhood” (Homolar & Löfflmann, 2022). This indicates a strong link betweenmasculinity, radicalization, and populist movements. Historically—and currently—we see thismobilization vis-à-vis white supremacy, involuntary celibacy (aka incels), and same-sexmarriage opposition. These movements prey on men’s fear of losing power by bolstering a senseof entitlement that, when not fulfilled, creates a visceral anger at those perceived to owe themsomething as opposed to shame of themselves for embodying that level of entitlement.Dr. El Jones—journalist, professor, and social justice activist—gives an example ofpotential consequences of mobilizing masculinity in university culture. Regarding the murdertrial of king-pin William Sandeson who killed opposing kingpin, Taylor Samson—both formerDalhousie students—Jones illustrates an image of toxic masculinity in its most dangerous form:criminal university cultures are dominated by a code of silence known as the no snitchingcode…These young men grow up in a culture where there is high debt and few jobs…Theysee the older men in the university community driving nice cars…showing off titles likeDr. and they want an easy path to that wealth and power. (Jones, 2017)The circumstances surrounding this murder are indicative of wide-spread proliferation acrossCanadian campuses of glorifying in-fighting among men for financial and social gain, and22whatever silence and violence is required to get it. This silence and violence often translates overto the way men view and treat not only their male peers, but also women and anyone they viewas effeminate. Mosher & Serkin establish three central elements of hypermasculinity that menexhibit in attempts to assert dominance in social interactions: “calloused sexual attitudes towardwomen…fetishization of violence as manly…[and] the understanding and promotion of dangeras exciting, in which the attitude that survival in dangerous situations…is a manly display ofmasculine power over the dangerous environment” (Mosher & Serkin, 1984 qtd. in Homolar &Löfflmann, 2022). Men who display hypermasculinity, including Sandeson, are examples of aperformance of manhood that transfeminists have long understood damaging to all genders.Language ShiftUpon reviewing use of the concepts of normative masculinity and violence, hegemonicand toxic masculinity, hybrid masculinity theory, and hegemonic bargaining, it becomes clearerthat the term toxic masculinity fails to encompass the more nuanced forms of gendered powerdynamics within a patriarchal society. It fails for five reasons; it:1.) Assumes toxicity is based in masculinity and men are the central perpetrators.2.) Fails to define masculinity outside the normative definition of masculinity thoseusing the term are fighting against.3.) Relies on labeling bad behaviors/attitudes as masculine—aggression, emotionalunavailability—when any gender identity can and does exhibit such attributes.4.) Blames said behaviors on cis men, the onus on cis women to call it out and excuseswomen/femme-identified people for their part in exhibiting the same toxicity, and;5.) Many who call such behaviors toxic, benefit from hegemonic social power relationsand label others’ behaviors as toxic to deflect from their own problematic actions, placingthemselves as more progressive to maintain peers’ approval.23Thus, I will only refer to "toxic" attributes related to masculinity as hegemonic gender ideology.Hegemony is defined as one group or culture holding dominance (read: power) overanother (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony is that“hegemonic control is not maintained merely by force or the threat of force, but by consent aswell. That is, a successful hegemony not only expresses the interest of a dominant class (seeIdeology), but also is able to get a subordinate class to see these interests as “natural” or a matterof “common sense” (Childers & Hentzi, 1995). Hegemony is not synonymous with toxicity.Toxic masculinity is a surface-level label for attributes harmful to the person exhibiting themand/or other people, while hegemonic masculinity refers to social power relations behind allattributes expected of those perceived as boys/men across all social institutions. Hegemonicmasculinity is at the root of harmful attributes, but also those viewed as positive within theculturally expected dominant narrative of masculinity. Successful hegemonic masculinitysatisfies the interests of those currently embodying the dominant masculine narrative andmakes those who are subordinated by it consent because they, too, see the dominant masculinityas natural. Counter-hegemonic masculinities exist in resistance to hegemonic masculinenarratives. However, the goal of counter-hegemonic masculinity should not be developing intothe new hegemonic masculinity, as this sustains the masculine hierarchy. The only change iswho is at the top and the bottom. Swapping places in the masculine hierarchy is not progression;the masculine hierarchy within hegemonic gender ideology needs to be dismantled altogether.My use of hegemonic gender ideology in critiquing hegemonic theology derives fromhegemonic masculinity as explicated by Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005 and Scott-Dixon, 2006,compared to recurring themes observed and categorized from my review of similar, if notverbatim attributes inaccurately labeled as toxic masculinity by: Greer, 2015; Bhana, 2005;Biddulph, 1997; Dollahite et. al., 2002; Eberly, 1999; Ferguson & Hogan, 2004; Gross, 1990;Harrington, 2022; Homolar & Löfflmann, 2022; Jones, 2017; Parent et. al., 2019; Pittman,1994; Randles, 2013; Raymond, 1979 qtd. in Murphy, 2020; Scott-Dixon, 2006; Sculos, 2017.24Fig. 1: Summarizing principles & tenets from lit. review of hegemonic theology/gender ideologyLINKS BETWEEN: HEGEMONIC THEOLOGY HEGEMONIC GENDER IDEOLOGYPRINCIPLE 1:GUILTGuilt⬇Pray for forgiveness⬇No accountability from ChurchGuilt⬇Project blame⬇No accountability from individualPRINCIPLE 2:SHAMEShame⬇Confess sins⬇Religious VictimizationShame⬇Entitlement⬇Self-VictimizationPRINCIPLE 3:FEARFear⬇Punishment in Hell⬇Violence inflicted on individualFear⬇Emasculation⬇Inflict violence on othersTENET 1Followers held to rigid,unyielding system of beliefsUnwavering desire for power & control,esp. via weaponization of masculinity toinstill fearTENET 2Producing cognitive dissonance,contradicting & conflictingdogmasSubordinating, degrading & devaluinganything / anyone who challenges one’sunderstanding of & ability to performconditioned cis-hetero masculinityTENET 3All questioning discouraged /silencedConstant need to prove one’s manhood,particularly through callous sex attitudestoward women & feminine-identifiedpersons, fetishization of violence as“manly” & promotion of danger asexciting, something to be conqueredTENET 4Outside / “Outside Ideologies“viewed as suspicious & a threatAvoidance of femininity / feminization &discouragement of emotionaldevelopment / expression beyond anger,confidence & lustTENET 5Pluralism of belief discouraged &other religions or no religion,unacceptableAdoption of “Us vs. Them“competition-threat narrative, particularlythrough distorted sense of entitlement topower, wealth & sexual satiationTENET 6 Strict enforcement of solely literalinterpretations of holy textsOntological, essentialist, binaryunderstanding of manhood & womanhood25Hegemonic TheologyThough I will be referring to such theology as hegemonic, the definition of "toxic"theology given by the Encyclopedia of World Problems & Human Potential is still applicable:belief systems that contain falsehoods…not referring to the underlying religion, but…itsexpression in a particular community of faith…containing a measure ofviolence—emotional, physical, or spiritual—and power abuse that compromises mentalhealth and physical wellbeing. (EWPHP, 2020)Examples of hegemonic theology listed in the EWPHP (2020) include: followers being held to arigid, unyielding system of beliefs and beratement for independent thought, producing cognitivedissonance or confusion from internal contradictions and conflicting dogmas, questioning beingdiscouraged and silenced, outsiders being seen as suspicious and a threat; pluralism of beliefbeing discouraged and other religions deemed unacceptable, and rigid enforcement of solelyliteral interpretation of holy texts. Any religious belief supported by hegemonic theology is basedin control and power through guilt, shame, and fear. My research will be focusing on onereligious institution’s hegemonic theology in particular: the Catholic Church.Who Uses Hegemonic Theology and How?Although it is my position, as an intersectional transfeminist, that nothing is inherentlymasculine or feminine, the expectations of gender, gender roles, expression, and identity are,however, still policed within hegemonic theologies that function under the opposite position.From theologians and my own lived experience, the Catholic Church expects Catholics to abideby a strictly binary, essentialist, ontological understanding of gender that is inherently sexist,racist, ableist, classist, and queer/transphobic. Anti-trans people take it upon themselves tointerpret and use this essentialist rhetoric to shame and guilt anyone who does not fall neatly26into the traditional gender binary for going against "God’s Will," requiring repentance andchanging their ways to be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven. Such hegemonic policing ofgender is not only harmful to visibly marginalized Catholics and other Christians. This form of"theological guidance" is detrimental to every follower because of the limitations and control ithas over their lives, whether they realize it or not.Most Catholic theologies and institutions operate under a top-down approach to faiththat holds fast to the notion that Scripture and official Church documents are inerrant andshould be followed without question, purely because it is God’s Word, and therefore, infallible.When we bring gender into this top-down approach to faith, those who hold fast to thisapproach will use passages from scripture to support the heterosexual matrix, that “designatesthe grid of cultural intelligibility through which bodies, genders, and desires are naturalized”(Butler, 1999 qtd. in Varela & Dhawan, 2011). The same naturalization is applied to genderidentity and expression, to enforce what Chambers & Carver (2008) refer to as genderintelligibility. Through scripture, conservative theological writing, and church leadership, thediscourse of hegemonic gender ideology is woven into the very fabric of the Catholic institutionand its constituents. Every value, belief, and moral judgment rests upon which gender, and inturn which gender role, has been assigned to you by the State, your family and parish. Anti-transCatholics believe this gender has been assigned by God, and that gender can be assumed asobvious and fixed to whatever external anatomy they see.Preaching and practicing of hegemonic Christian theology is not limited to churchleaders or theologians. It can also be observed throughout alt-right Christian and/or educationalinstitutions, organizations, and Christian advocates. However, for the purposes of my work, Iwill be homing in on two official Vatican documents that hold substantial power over Catholicbelievers—one that addresses homosexuality in 1986, the other addressing transgender persons,particularly youth, in 2019—both of which inform non-church leaders’ and theologians’thinking, writing, and public engagements (Sprinkle, 2021; Pearcey, 2018):27(1) Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of HomosexualPersons (1986), Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, aka. Pope Benedict XVI(2) Male & Female, He Created Them: Towards a Path of Dialogue on the Question ofGender Theory in Education (2019), Catholic Congregation for Education, Vatican PressLetter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual PersonsWith the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the Catholic Church’s lack of support forgay people dying in droves, the Vatican could no longer ignore the underlying parallel epidemicof homophobia. In 1986, the Vatican answered the public’s call to give the Church’s officialstance on homosexuality. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, popularly known as former Pope BenedictXVI, wrote the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of HomosexualPersons. He provides over a dozen arguments against the Church’s acceptance of individualsacting on their homosexual condition and provides guidance to priests on providing the bestpastoral care to same-sex-attracted individuals. This letter is over-saturated with hegemonicgender ideology in relation to masculinity discourses within hegemonic Catholic theology. But,for the purpose of context—and because this document is primarily addressing homosexuality,not trans people—I will briefly discuss three examples that directly impact queer and transpeople and illustrate hegemonic Catholic theology operationalizing and policing masculinity.Complementarity & The Life-Giving UnionPope Benedict XVI begins by speaking on complementarity of cis-men and cis-womenand their ability to procreate, but only in married unions. He refers to this "loving and life-givingunion" as the sacrament of marriage and only sex in the context of this heterosexual maritalunion can be viewed as "morally good." In response to why a loving union between two people ofthe same sex is not a manifestation of God's love, he asserts that, “to choose someone of thesame sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention28the goals, of the Creator's sexual design” (s7). There are plenty of heterosexual Christianmarriages that are lacking in the "rich symbolism and meaning" department. Countlessheterosexual marriages are based completely on money, are abusive—emotionally, physically,sexually, spiritually, or financially—and/or only happened because of familial expectations.Homosexual activity is not a complementary union—able to "naturally" transmitlife—and so, it “thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is theessence of Christian living” (s7). Yet, there are many heterosexual, cisgender, Christian marriedcouples who cannot conceive due to infertility issues, high health risks, or simply not wantingchildren. Reasons for not wanting kids include inadequate finances, being in a domesticallyabusive marriage, mental health issues with detrimental consequences for the mother/child, ademanding or high-risk job, or that having kids is just not right for them. With all thesepossibilities within heterosexual cisgender unions, why is a same-sex and/or trans couple in ahealthy, stable relationship, who want to start a family via IVF, donor, surrogate, or adoptionnot also performing an act of giving and nurturing life? And why is the bar set so low forcis-heterosexual unions to be "complementary?" According to this document, all that is requiredis a Catholic church wedding and a marriage license between two fertile adults. There is nomention of how to be a good partner to one’s spouse or a good parent to one’s children. Thoughthe definition of "good partner/parent" is subjective, without any benchmarks whatsoever, thisdocument would still grant legitimate "complementarity" to a cis-heterosexual married couplewho beats their children (and potentially one partner also beating their spouse), so long as theynaturally conceived their kids and maintain custody. In short, the Catholic Church believesanything other than natural, heterosexual procreation is playing God.Distorted Practices, Sacrifice & Deliverance From EvilPope Benedict XVI addresses homosexuality as "self-indulgent," "intrinsicallydisordered" and a "moral evil" that “prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness” (s7). In29response to gay hate crimes, he sounds empathetic at first, saying everyone deserves respect,and those who commit hate crimes deserve condemnation. But he finishes with victim blaming:“When homosexual activity is…condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protectbehavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society…should besurprised when…irrational and violent reactions increase (s10).This is another example of the Catholic Church producing cognitive dissonance andconflicting dogmas. First, he says it should not be a legally protected right to not be attackedbased on sexual orientation, but no one should be surprised when such attacks do occur becauseit is "understandable" that people are going to be distraught witnessing something "unnatural.”This is the equivalent of telling a rape victim that, while a rapist’s actions are deplorable, itwould not have happened if they had just covered up. The former Pope makes it clear thathegemonic masculinity/Catholic culture is, indeed, rape culture: victim blaming, noaccountability, and gaslighting. Hegemonic masculinity and, in turn, the Catholic Church,frames rape as "natural" because the entire mainstream discourse about rape is how to avoidbecoming a victim to it, not how to stop oneself from committing rape. The Church’s silentindifference to rape culture, despite centuries of perpetuating it, is normative violence.One does not have to look hard to find cases of clergy members getting caught forsexually abusing children, only to force victims/families to sign NDAs while the offending clergymember is moved to another parish to abuse a new community of children or pass away beforejustice can be served. The Jesuits, a religious order of the Roman Catholic Church, released thenames of 27 Canadian Catholic priests who were guilty of child sexual abuse dating back to 1950:Of the men named, all but three are dead. The order says…the release of the names ispart of the Jesuits' effort to promote transparency, accountability, justice, and healing forsurvivors of abuse. In most cases, the abuse came to light after the alleged abuser had30died…some cases never reaching criminal or civil litigation…Rev. Erik Oland says despitethe exhaustive review, other names may be added to the list in the future. (CTV, 2023)These are just 27 names the Jesuits were willing to release because most are dead and mostcases against the Church on behalf of the accused never reached criminal sentencing or victimcompensation. Despite their claim of promoting transparency, accountability, and healing intheir "exhaustive review," none of this is achieved by releasing a remarkably incomplete list.Christian Authenticity & DissentThe love the sinner, hate the sin discourse is more damaging to queer folks than tellingus upfront that we are not accepted. Classifying queerness as just as much a sin as adultery,rape, and murder is extremely degrading. The "sins" listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (“...shall notinherit the Kingdom of God”) and Exodus 20 (the 10 Commandments), homosexuality is thesole focus of this discourse. The Catholic Church still views divorce as a sin, but no one says,“love the divorcee, hate the divorce.” The Catholic Church views murder as sin—and a criminaloffence—but no one says, “love the murderer, hate the murder.” When more time and energy isput into "reforming" homosexuals than murderers—or the ever increasing list of pedophilicpriests—one must question whether the Catholic Church is in any position to police morality.Whenever people ‘dissent’ from this harmful discourse, the former Pope warns bishopsto watch out for any programs that stray from it to be more inclusive and compassionate, as hebelieves, there is nothing compassionate about "lying" to parishioners about "the Truth." Heasserts no program that includes homosexual persons can be authentically pastoral unless it isto convert them away from this "moral ill" (s15). He asks bishops to use all resources at theirdisposal to develop proper pastoral care programs “includ[ing] the assistance of thepsychological, sociological and medical sciences, in full accord with the teaching of the Church”(s17). Ultimately, the former Pope aligns with all support being withdrawn from pro-gay (and31trans) religious programming and is strictly against letting such programming take place inCatholic spaces, for he postulates, it is “contradictory to the purpose for which these institutionswere founded…[to] keep as [the] uppermost concern the responsibility to defend and promotefamily life” (s17). If the "family life" in question is headed by a Christian, cisgender, andheterosexual mother and father, the Church overlooks any other shortcoming so long as theparent(s) go to confession for ignoring their children’s emotional needs, for example.Male & Female, He Created Them: Toward a Path of Dialogue on Gender Theory in EducationIn 2019, the Vatican finally responded to the call for the Catholic Church’s stance ontrans/gender-non-conforming persons in and outside the Church. The Vatican Press releasedthe Catholic Congregation for Education’s document,Male and Female, He Created Them:Towards a Path of Dialogue on the Question of Gender Theory. This document is meant toprovide the Church’s guidance for youth educators in Christian and secular schools on dealingwith "the rise of gender theory" in schools and media and give religious arguments against theacceptance of this theory, i.e., against accepting trans people and any non-cis-heteronormativerelationship or union. This document, too, is oversaturated with hegemonic gender ideology inrelation to masculinity discourse(s) within hegemonic Catholic theology. As this documentpertains specifically to addressing trans people in the Church, I will give a more detailed accountof passages that illustrate Catholic theological operationalizing and policing of masculinity.Gender Theory & DenaturalizationThe Catholic Congregation for Education shares their views on gender theory and itspitfalls in relation to Church teachings on gender and sex. The CCE refers to gender theory—as ifthere is only one—as a “gradual process of denaturalization” of the family, and “the view of bothsexuality identity and the family become…founded on nothing more than a confused concept offreedom in the realm of feelings and wants, or momentary desires provoked by emotional32impulses and the will of the individual, as opposed to anything based on the truths of existence”(11). The CCE labels those they do not understand as "radicalized gender theory advocates" whoincorrectly view gender as more important than male and female sex. They argue that gendertheorists deny biological difference and are in denial of the “natural reciprocity that existsbetween men and women” thus, emptying the family of its “anthropological basis” (11-2).Those who study and respect all genders are not: (a) denying the existence of biologicaldifferences, (b) in denial of the natural reciprocity between men and women, or (c) destroyingthe anthropological basis of the family. We acknowledge that there are, indeed, biologicaldifferences between humans, but these are not differences between genders; these arephysiological differences between sexes. There is a particularly important distinction to be madebetween gender and sex, and we simply believe that one’s biology should not dictate genderidentity, nor the social roles assigned to them, in society or in the private sphere of the family.The reciprocity between men and women in cis-heteronormative families is not natural due totheir biology, but rather, to the rigid gender roles they have been socially conditioned into. Whatmay be seen as "reciprocity" in the eyes of the Church and one spouse, may feel more likecoercion to the other spouse who has less agency or right to selfhood in order to fulfill their"natural" role in the marriage, i.e., a cisgender, heterosexual woman who does not actually wantkids but is forced into motherhood because she needs to fulfill this "womanly duty" outlined inher Catholic wedding vows and in consultation/"pastoral guidance" with her priest.It is these rigid gender roles that the CCE’s concept of the anthropological basis of thefamily derives: one cis-het woman and one cis-het man joining in holy matrimony to thenprocreate to fulfill their Christian duty to ‘be fruitful and multiply,’ and to ‘fill the earth’ withmore followers who will spread the Word of Jesus Christ. Yet, the "anthropological basis" ofChristianity is community and loving thy neighbor as thyself, i.e., loving them like family. WhenHe walked the earth, Jesus consistently brought people with stark differences together underone overarching community of faith and hope in something bigger than themselves. Jesus33himself did not come from what the Catholic Church deems a traditional family unit; his mother,Mary, received immaculate IVF from God, and Joseph, Jesus’ stepfather, co-parented with God.As Jesus grew up, one could argue that all his disciples—not just the acknowledged twelve maleapostles—became his extended chosen family. And when Jesus was crucified and buried, thosedisciples wept with Mary and Joseph, supporting them like family.A modern example of a loving family outside the "traditional family unit" would be twotrans men adopting a child, loving and raising them as their own. This may not be a "traditional"family by institutionalized Catholic standards, but I would argue that the love observed by twotrans men choosing to go through the whole, painstakingly long adoption process to raise a childshould be held in even higher regard than that of a cis-het couple bearing biological children by"accident" or through "reciprocity." Committing to the adoption process should indicate that thechild is genuinely loved and wanted, not an "accident" or marital obligation. Additionally, thosetrans men may be saving a child who has been stuck in a cycle of never-ending abusive fosterhomes, which requires even more commitment to that child’s healing and teaching them thatabuse is not love—a lesson that the Catholic Church’s does not have the most pristine record forproselytizing. So yes, gender theorists are denaturalizing relations between men and women:arbitrarily fabricated realities of gender, sex, and cis-het "reciprocity."The Family & Children’s Well-BeingThe CCE cannot fathom a family unit that is not a cis-father, a cis-mother and two+cis-children. However, there are a myriad of families who belong to the Catholic Church who donot see their union’s purpose as solely a "baby mill," but as family units based in love, safety, andbuilding a small community within a larger community of families. The social identities withinthese families do notmake or break the anthropological basis of the family if these identities donot impede the parents/guardians’ ability to provide their kids with a safe, healthy, and lovinghome where they can thrive After all, the Bible clearly states we are all God’s children, brothers34and sisters, most of whom we will never meet, but still must care for their well-being and valuetheir contribution to the human species, overall. The CCE believes that children have the right tonot only grow up in a home where the family is recognized as the primary instructiveenvironment for their social development, but also, “to grow up in a family with a father and amother capable of creating a suitable environment for the child’s development and emotionalmaturity and continuing to grow up and mature in a correct relationship represented by themasculinity and femininity of a father and a mother” (21). If they really believed this statement,the Church would treat divorce, infidelity, and pre-marital sex with the same, if not more,dutiful vigor. This is a classic example of Catholic ideological influence on non-Catholic andsecular environments and its lasting impacts on what is considered gender normative, even inenvironments that claim to be opposed to deviating family dynamics for "secular reasons."Catholicism, and its subsequent Christian denominations’ manipulative interpretation ofscripture is a big reason, even in secular society, women who have been sexually assaulted, oreven just a divorcee who had sex with her ex-husband while they were married, are seen as"defiled" or a "used goods." The specific Bible verse I am referring to is: “They shall not take awife who is a harlot or a defiled woman, nor shall they take a woman divorced from herhusband; for the priest is holy to his God” (Leviticus 21:7, NKJV). Victim blaming, policing ofwomen’s sexuality, and rape culture in general has become so naturalized in society that no onecalls out Christianity’s influence on such callous sexual attitudes from people of all genders whostill hold steadfast to this ideological facet of hegemonic masculinity.Anti-LGBTQIA+ propaganda from Catholic institutions and organizations have manyfolks still grossly misinformed through the hegemonic theological belief that children arehappiest, healthiest, and safest with a cis-mother and a cis-father because same-sex,single-parent, or households headed by anyone other than two biological parents, are unstableor perverse. Results from numerous meta-analyses comparing ‘developmental outcomes’ and‘quality of parent–child relationships’ among children raised by gay versus heterosexual, and35trans versus cisgender parents suggest that children raised by same-sex parents and/or transparents report similar levels of self-esteem, social development, and life satisfaction as childrenraised by heterosexual [or trans] parents (Imrie et. al, 2021; Crowl et. al., 2008), and that a‘nurturing family predicts better social competence than the family structure’ (Muñoz-Martínez,2016; Foster, 2005). Children are not born innately bigoted towards different familial make-upsuntil other people teach them this bigotry. They are not "confused" by having same-sex parents.It is adults who have learned homophobic rhetoric that have a harder time understanding theconcept of same-sex parent households [Sasnett, 2015; Fairtlough, 2008].Additionally, the decline in the ‘culture of marriage’ in Canada and the US can beattributed to many things, but it does not lead to higher poverty rates or other social ills, i.e.,addiction, mental illness, and crime rates. If anything, most people living in poverty aremarriedand their poverty is usually due to economic crises and systemic barriers; in fact, economic crisisis one of the top reasons people—particularly millennials—are not having children, too, becausethey simply cannot afford to raise children [Choi & Ramaj, 2024; Lundberg et. al., 2016). Moremillennials and Gen-Zs realize they do not want to, nor do they need, to get married, bemonogamous, and/or have children to live happy, meaningful lives. This goes for people of allgender identities, sexual orientations and mono/poly dating practices (Hoy, 2024; Pain, 2020).The Catholic Church projects all the blame for this shift onto others, particularly massesof youth leaving the Church, and they would be partially correct. Many, young and older, areleaving the Church to break free from restrictive teachings on marriage—specificallydiscouragement of/mandating repentance for divorce and requiring annulment of previousmarriage(s) to remarry in the Church—though this is only one of many reasons. The PewResearch Center cites youth under 24 leaving the Catholic Church because they were unhappywith Church teachings/actions on issues like homosexuality, abortion, birth control,treatment/gender expectations of women, literal Bible interpretation, clergy abuses, and overallhypocrisy, rigidity, and intolerance from clergy and parishioners (Pew Research Center, 2011).36Schooling & The Social OrderThe CCE’s report concludes with hopes for the education system’s role in supporting and,thereby, perpetuating hegemonic gender ideologies throughout youths’ lives as they enterexpectedly cis-heteronormative families of their own. The CCE believes the West is “faced with aculture that largely reduces human sexuality to the level of something commonplace, since itinterprets and lives it in a reductive and impoverished way by linking it solely with the body andwith selfish pleasure,” and “the educational service of parents must aim firmly at a training inthe area of sex that is truly and fully personal” (21). This conflicting dogma tells Christians to notinterpret sexuality in "reductive" or "impoverished ways," and to view sexuality as purely forprocreation and women satisfying their husbands’ needs. As previously mentioned, this meansthe person with less power/say-so within the traditional Catholic marriage—typically acis-woman—is effectively forced to have sex with her husband on his libido’s schedule and isprohibited from using condoms or birth control to strive for successful conception of as manybabies as the Lord has "planned" for her, regardless of whether or not she wants to do so.I remember a woman in my hometown who already had five kids and was scared to havemore with her health conditions, but her husband wanted to; so, she went to her priest forguidance on using contraception, to which he said would go against nature and God’s Will, andshe ended up having two more kids, with the final pregnancy’s labor almost killing her. Thisinterpretation of sexuality strips those with less power in the relationship of their agency andbodily autonomy, and can have profoundly serious, even lethal consequences. Sexualexperiences for consensual pleasure should be commonplace, as everyone experiences and has asexuality/romantic orientation, whether that be straight, gay, bisexual, pansexual, asexual withlesbian romantic attraction et cetera. However, the CCE does not want Christians to view beingqueer and/or trans as an authentic form/mode of human sexuality.37For the CCE, sexuality is not an identity or an experience to simply enjoy; it only servesone purpose and no matter the cost: procreation. Growing up, I was taught in the CatholicChurch that babies are always a blessing and abortion is always infanticide, and in the case ofan ectopic pregnancy, to "pray and let God’s Will be done." As an AFAB, closeted teen who gotpregnant at 16 through coercion, it was church "morals" like this that I was terrified, butthankful, to miscarry in the bathroom, alone at home, without telling anyone for years. Thisallowed me to avoid making the lose-lose decision between a.) accepting being forced intocarrying to term, delivering, and putting her up for adoption, or b.) attempting to have a "secret"abortion only to receive hateful public scrutiny upon myself and family that I witnessed otherteens as young as 13 experience with their abortions. It was not until years later, away from theCatholic Church, that I came to see my miscarriage as a harrowing blessing in disguise, despitewhat could have gone horribly wrong. The Catholic Church would say viewing miscarriage as ablessing is blasphemous and requires repentance. I believe the only blasphemy here is valuing abarely formed fetus conceived through coercive sex, barren of any love, as more worthy of lifethan the already living, breathing girl who just wanted a chance to live out the life God gave her.I am here today because I believe that miscarriage was an amendment to God’s plan for me; Godknew I had yet to step into who I really was and my life’s purpose beyond procreation, so Theygranted me the grace of another chance, and I thank God every day for that.The CCE say they are not homo/transphobic, as they respect all fundamental rights ofthe person, including freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (22). The contradiction hereis glaring: people have freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, just not the freedom tothink anything other than the views provided in this document. Parishioners are free to bethemselves if they do not act on queerness or transness, put up boundaries around consent, ordeny cis men of their God-given (read: arbitrary, coercive) right to power. They round out thisresource with a call-to-action for grade-school teachers and administrations in public andprivate schools to build “a new alliance…that can offer a positive and prudent sexual education…38an atmosphere of transparency where all parties constantly keep others informed of what each isdoing, facilitating maximum involvement” (24). One cannot help but be reminded of the newalliance known as the "Holy" Crusades between 1095-1270 where the same evangelizationefforts were promoted under God’s Will. Today we understand these efforts to be “a series ofmilitary campaigns organized by popes and Christian western powers to take Jerusalem and theHoly Land back fromMuslim control and then defend those gains,” or in other words, Whitesupremacist colonization that forced hundreds of thousands of innocent people to eitherassimilate to an insolent weaponization of Christian faith or be one of the estimated one millionmurdered Muslims and Jews in the name of the Christian God (Cartwright, 2018).Furthermore, the Catholic Church asks for a positive and prudent sex education in anatmosphere of transparency, when the Church: (a) pushes heterosexual abstinence-only sexeducation, (b) tries to cover up priests sexually abusing children by transferring those priests tonew parishes, (c) pays people off to stay silent on SA allegations, (d) uses Church donations toline corrupt Church leaders’ pockets and to pay their legal fees for such allegations, and (e) triesto lie their way out of the genocide of Indigenous children across Canada and the US byexplaining that these schools were just trying to "educate and civilize the savages" and thedeaths were all due to "uncontrollable illness" (Johnson, 2019).Male and Female, He Created Them is a document riddled with examples of hegemonictheology: (1) followers are held to a rigid and unyielding system of beliefs, (2) cognitivedissonance produced through conflicting dogma, (3) all questioning is discouraged and silenced,(4) outside ideologies and theologies are viewed as a threat, (5) pluralism of belief isdiscouraged, and (6) solely literal interpretation of the Bible is rigidly enforced. All six tenets ofhegemonic theology (Figure 1, p. 25) are, consequently, used by non-affirming Church leaders topush the "crisis of masculinity" stance in the crisis vs transformation of masculinity debate. Oneof the strongest tools for pushing this crisis rhetoric is incorporating hegemonic gender ideology39into Church teachings—with a particular focus on masculinity, as the Church typically valuesmasculinity over femininity—the core of hegemonic gender ideology.Traditional Catholic Hegemonic MasculinityThe following are examples of hegemonic Catholic expectations from two prominentCatholic readerships which exemplify the Vatican’s teachings in the daily life of Catholicfollowers: The Catholic Herald based in London, England, since 1888, and The CatholicRegister based in Toronto, Canada, since 1893.In ‘Defense of Masculinity,’ written for The Catholic Herald, Joanna Bogle, aLondon-based author and historian, argues that men, especially men of Catholic faith, are“underappreciated” and “wrongfully chastised” for behavior which, she believes, is God-given(ex., being the breadwinner of the family/sacrificing more family time for work promotions,strictly disciplining the kids, expecting the wife to handle most of the emotional needs of thechildren, expecting the wife to maintain her femininity/figure/attractiveness for him etc.). Boglerefers to the Church as a mother who “loves her sons…wants them to show Christian leadershipand Christian initiative…[and] wants their stories told: as missionaries and martyrs, heroes andscholars, and teachers and visionaries” (Catholic Herald, 2019). She continues saying thepriesthood is one leadership role exclusive to men because Christ was born, died, and rose fromthe dead as a man. Bogle also draws reference to Joseph, foster-father to Jesus, husband to theHoly Virgin, and “provider of food for the table, protectors of the mother and child,” as a primeexample of how men should take initiative in their lives outside the priesthood.Bogle’s column sums up the "ideal" masculinity and manhood as a life of Christianleadership and initiative, martyrdom and heroism, mentorship and vision, and protecting andproviding for women and children, with no room for sentimentalism or softness. She even goesas far as to insinuate that a man "displaying pink cheeks, soft robes, and holding a lily, does notlook reliable." This is indicative of traditional Catholic teachings that presumesmasculinemen40must always be leaders who are strong, sacrificing, brave, intelligent, and resourceful, andanything other than these traits is effeminate, and therefore, weak, intellectually inferior, andunreliable. Transfeminists would question what exactly Bogle means by Christian leadershipand initiative, martyrdom and heroism, mentorship and vision, and providing and protecting.On the other side of this social power relation, cis-women and children have the right to askwhere they are being lead to, who or what are they being rescued from, what and whosedoctrine/dogma are they being informed by, and why is it solely the job of the man to provideand protect the family. Unfortunately, Bogle—and many other women—have internalized thissexist, patronizing view of themselves in relation to men.This is hegemonic gender ideology steeped in traditional Catholic hegemonic theology asmirrored in the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care ofHomosexual, which can all be related back to the three primary principles of hegemonic genderideology and hegemonic theology: guilt, shame, and fear. It is this guilt, shame, and fear thatfuels the benevolent sexism men are conditioned to internalize. Men must lead because womenneed guidance. "Good men" must rescue women from the "bad men" because they are helplesswithout them. Men must teach women to know their place in the home "for their own good."Men must protect women from temptation to pursue something outside "their place" for theirown safety. Men must control women because traditional Catholic hegemonic theology says thisis God’s Will. Power lives in hegemonic masculinity and manhood, and every power relationneeds to maintain the facade of mutual benefits to keep that power.In ‘Fathers are Guardians of the Family & Church,’ written for The Catholic Register,Sheila Nonato, former journalist for CBC Ottawa, Toronto Star, Jordan Times, and IRIN MiddleEast, interviews Lukasz Petrykowski, Catholic apologist, father, and former Toronto chapterpresident of the Catholic Civil Rights League. Petrykowski believes that Canada, along withother "progressive/leftist countries," is experiencing a "crisis of masculinity" due to anotheralleged underlying phenomenon within and outside the Church: a "crisis of fatherhood." He41explains how being a father now feels like “fighting a cultural battle against the gradualfeminization of men in society…that fatherhood is at a crossroads that threatens families as weknow them today,” and in modern society, “husbands and fathers are optional and qualities suchas fortitude, stoicism, courage and fidelity are obsolete” (Catholic Register, 2011).What is legibly masculine is gradually shifting as men are realizing that high emotionalintelligence benefits perceived stress levels and increases overall health (Thomas et. al., 2018;Martins et. al., 2010) so yes, our culture is gradually becoming more "feminized." Traditionalfatherhood is on the decline for many reasons, namely that more men (and women) are nowrejecting gendered parenting norms and accepting other family structures that work better forthem and their children (Preisner et. al., 2020) or are deciding to delay or forego parenthooddue to socio-economic crisis (Nau et. al., 2015), so yes, fatherhood is at a "crossroads." Andqualities of fortitude, stoicism, courage and fidelity appear to be declining but are just adaptingas more men are admitting that they are struggling and accepting professional help (Gilgoff et.al., 2023) so, yes "masculine" qualities are starting to become culturally unintelligible to menwho still feel too ashamed or emasculated to reach out for help. Petrykowski is correct on allaspects of his statements; he is misinformed on the nuances behind why these things are true,and that none of those nuances are necessarily negative.Petrykowski argues this is happening because of the "incorrect gender ideology" that saysgender is merely a social construction. He advocates for the "God-given biological reality" wheremen are made in the image and likeness of God, and should assume their God-given role as aCatholic father who “shepherds the people and the souls entrusted to him,” and not the“so-called metrosexual man who is concerned with fashion and appearance…incorporating afeminine nature to his masculinity…including wearing makeup, nail polish and other beautyadornments previously only seen on women” (Catholic Register, 2011). Once again, masculinityvaries by culture and being a man is not an either/or matter of masculinity or femininity. Why isthe optionality of cis-heteronormative fatherhood necessarily something to be concerned about?42What is something to be concerned about is the current economic crisis and its impacts on andbeyond accessible parenthood. No one is encouraging husbands and fathers incis-heteronormative households to leave or neglect their families, nor discouraging cis-hetpeople in healthy relationships from starting a family. What they are saying is that is not theonly acceptable family makeup or life path, and simply being a cisgender straight man in acis-heteronormative family does not equate to being a "good Christian."This is hegemonic gender ideology steeped in traditional Catholic hegemonic theology asmirrored in ‟Male and Female, He Created Them: Towards a Path of Dialogue on the Questionof Gender Theory.” Nonato’s article and the Vatican document would like Christians to believethat bodily autonomy and non-cis-het desires are blasphemous, that children are confused fromexposure to points of view outside the Church and cis-het family unit, and that a child’sdevelopment, ability to grow up, and enter mature relationships is under threat by pluralism ofbelief and atheism. In one box, they place Christian faith and conservatism—in the other, queeridentity and progressiveness. But Christian does not always equate to conservative beliefs, andqueer does not always equate to progressive beliefs on gender and sexuality. A growing numberof Christian communities are teaching and practicing gender and sexuality, particularlymasculinity and queerness, in ways counter to those previously foretold.Though understanding of masculinity varies by context, time, and individually, there arefive principles that remain constant in traditional Catholic hegemonic masculine expectations:(1) Masculinity is to be embodied by men only and honored and obeyed by women.(2) A good Christian man is a cis-heteronormative family man.(3) Men must show Christian leadership in the home, Church, and community.(4) Men can only show vulnerability in private, away from the public.(5) Children are susceptible to a life of sin without a masculine father in the home.43LGBTQIA+-Affirming Catholic TheologyIn contrast to Catholic hegemonic expectations of gender, there is one Catholicorganization that does practice gender and sexuality affirmation that aims to help Christians ofall denominations integrate their faith with acceptance of queer/trans identities. Founded in1977, NewWays Ministry is an US-based Catholic organization that educates and advocates forequity, inclusion, and justice for LGBTQIA+ people worldwide by working to build dialoguebetween the Church and secular society. NWM has four core commitments:1.) Promot[e] dialogue & reconciliation grounded in…unity & diversity of the Body ofChrist2.) Becoming anti-racist in our programming, publications, and internal operations3.) Support research & resources that empower pastoral ministers and educators toadvance an intersectional understanding of gender identity and sexuality4.) Fostering holiness & wholeness within the Catholic LGBTQ+ community andallies through spiritual programs and resources.(NWM, Core Commitments, 2022)These commitments can be used to deconstruct hegemonic masculinity woven into the tapestryof traditional Catholic theology for a more inclusive theology motivated by radical love, not fear.Unsurprisingly, most Catholic Church leaders have distanced themselves from NWM forits progressive views, even denying NWM as authentically Catholic. But despite a tight budgetand profound public scrutiny, NewWays Ministry has since stood their ground in theirLGBTQIA+ affirming position. One example of this holy defiance comes from NWM’s executivedirector, Francis DeBernardo, in his response to the Vatican document summarized in myexploration of hegemonic theology,Male & Female, He Created Them. DeBernardo (2019)argues that this document is not an educational tool, but rather, a tool of discrimination to be44used against trans youth, and the LGBTQIA+ community overall, by perpetuating andencouraging bigotry and violence. DeBernardo encapsulates the Vatican’s adherence to Catholichegemonic theology and its implications in jeopardous hegemonic gender ideologies:The only truth the document reveals is that the Vatican remains ill-equipped to discussgender and sexuality in the modern world…Because they have not consulted science orpeople’s experiences, the Vatican’s theology on gender is deficient and flawed. It relies oncategories of male and female that were shaped centuries ago in oppressive andrepressive cultures. (DeBernardo, 2019)Indeed, the Vatican has not updated their knowledge of gender and sexuality in a rapidlychanging world. It is possible to believe in both God and science, but the Vatican has yet to showsigns of this besides finally admitting global warming is real under Pope Francis’ appointment.Crisis vs Transformation of Masculinity in CatholicismWith a general understanding of the theorization and uses of both hegemonic genderideology and hegemonic Catholic theology, a strong link is evident: acceptance and promotion ofnon-hegemonic masculinities continues to pose a threat to the Catholic Church, its clergy, andconservative members because trans men/masculinity confronts and challenges the Church’s:● Unwavering desire for power and control over female, juvenile, racialized,disabled, poor, and congregation members of other marginalized groups● Fear of losing male-entitled respect in the Church, home, and society at large, andconstant need to prove this authoritative manhood● Avoidance of femininity and justification for subjecting women to subservientroles in the Church, in the home, and in society at large● "Christian Savior Complex" and "Good Christian" image45● Essentialist understandings of gender as justification for pushing the narrative ofthe "natural" family, i.e., mother, father, sons, and daughtersTrans men (and trans women) challenge Catholic conservatives’ ego, pride, and entitlement totheir positions of power, in the Church and secular society. A social phenomenon emerges fromthis conflict, referred to as the crisis of masculinity vs. transformation of masculinities.Auto-Biographical Life Writing: Trans MemoirsLife writing outlines the events of one’s life, written by or about someone deemed oldenough to have the lived experiences to write or be written about, typically in the format of an(auto)biography or memoir. For this research, I will focus on the medium of memoir. RachelMeltzer notes an important differentiation between memoirs and autobiographies: “A memoir isa nonfiction narrative in which the author shares their memories from a specific time or reflectsupon a string of themed occurrences throughout their life. An autobiography is a factual andhistorical account of one’s entire life from beginning to end” (Meltzer, 2022).The wordmemoir comes from the French word mémoire, meaningmemory. So, in thesimplest sense, Patricia Thang asserts that memoirs are:about the author remembering, reminiscing, and reflecting on experiences from theirlives…While lived experiences can’t be fact-checked, every single one is true to theperson going through it. Though they don’t necessarily give a full, multi-perspectivepicture, memoirs are special in that they allow readers to see how others see andunderstand the same world. (Thang, 2018)In other words, the primary distinction between memoirs and autobiographies is themedsubjective vs general objective truths. Thang suggests memoirs cannot be fact-checked, which ispartially true. The facts in their story can be fact-checked—such as specific dates, persons46present, and even the weather—however, how the experiences impacted the author, while true tothem, are still subjective. Memoir is a flexible genre with no singular structure but, typically, amemoir will follow a specific theme—including obstacles the author has or continues toovercome related to that theme—detailed through flashbacks and, often, dialogue to provide thebackstory pertinent to understanding the author’s overall message (Meltzer, 2002).One theme that has developed into an exponentially growing memoir sub-genre over thelast couple of decades is the trans memoir. Trans memoir has typically revolved around theobstacles the author has had to overcome being trans, and how these experiences havedeveloped their understanding of themselves and the world around them from a transpositionality. The first known trans memoir, in a Western context, wasMan Into Woman: AnAuthentic Record of a Change of Sex, published in 1923, written by Lili Elbe, a trans womanfrom England, famously known as the first trans woman to undergo a sex reassignment surgery(now commonly referred to as gender-affirming surgeries). Unfortunately, what started out as arevolutionary sub-genre for sharing trans voices has left out and dismissed many of those voicesfor not adhering to what has become the Western hegemonic trans narrative.The Western Hegemonic Trans NarrativeBradford & Syed (2019), Vipond (2019), Darwin (2020), and Konnelly (2021) sharesimilar positions on the Western hegemonic trans narrative dominating the trans memoir genre,building on a new concept coined by Austin Johnson in his (2013) master’s thesis:transnormativity. Johnson defines transnormativity as “the specific ideological accountabilitystructure to which transgender people’s presentations and experiences of gender are heldaccountable.” In ‟Transnormativity: A New Concept and its Validation Through DocumentaryFilm About Transgender Men” (2016), Johnson expands on this definition:47Transnormativity is a hegemonic ideology that structures transgender experience,identification, and narratives into a hierarchy of legitimacy..dependent upon a binarymedical model and its accompanying standards, regardless of individual trans people’sinterest in or intention to undertake medical pathways to transition. (Johnson, 2016)He argues that publishers and publicists prioritizing the transmedicalist model overde-pathologizing / fluidity models (Jacobsen et. al., 2022) further marginalizes gendernon-conforming people who cannot or have no desire to transition medically. It is also vital tonote that transnormativity is not the institutions themselves—cis/trans communities,educational, healthcare, and legal institutions—but rather, these institutions are conduits thatcan channel social power to either challenge or perpetuate a transnormative culture.As a normative ideology that regulates social relations, transnormativity can beunderstood in relation to the sociological concepts that preceded and developed it:heteronormativity (Berlant and Warner, 1998; Ingraham, 1994; Warner, 1991),homonormativity (Duggan, 2003; Seidman, 2002), and the transmedical model (Jackson,2006; Rich, 1980). Transnormativity is both an empowering and restricting ideology, privilegingsome trans identities as legitimate, and subordinating other trans identities as illegitimate.While cis and trans people are both held to sociocultural standards of masculinity andfemininity relating to gender-specific language, mannerisms, dress, behavior, et cetera (Connell2010), within trans communities, additional complexities of gender accountability are policed bysocial actors that extend beyond partners, friends, and family. In a transnormative culture, transidentities are granted authenticity through a variety of social actors that cis people have privilegeof ignoring without threats to their cis-heteronormative identity, including healthcarepractitioners, government ID distributing agencies, and police stations for background checks.A transnormative culture cultivates hegemonic gender expectations entrenched in twoprimary discourses of trans identity: born in the wrong body and I always knew (Hines, 2009;48McBee, 2012; Mock, 2012). The two discourses leave little to no room for alternative discoursesof gender non-confirming identities outside the man/woman, trans man/woman genderbinaries and creates daily barriers for those who do not or choose not to pass as a man orwoman. While passing privilege (i.e. the privilege to consistently be gendered as the gender oneidentifies with), is based on arbitrary social constructions of what a man or woman “should”look, sound, act, and think like, and should never dictate trans authenticity, it largely remainsthe crux of daily safety, ease in daily routines, and acceptance in a cis-heteronormative society.Johnson argues that placing the highest trans legitimacy within the medical model and itsstandardized criteria (i.e. DSM-5; WPATH) “creates a normative process of becomingtransgender that requires trans people to produce a biography wherein they have exhibited signsor symptoms of gender non-conformity throughout life that in turn have caused them emotionaldistress” (Bolin, 1988; Cromwell, 1999; Denny, 2006; Spade, 2003 qtd. in Johnson 2016).From Bradford & Syed’s (2019) application of Lyotard’smaster narrative and gendernon-conforming persons’ agency in strategically resisting/conceding with narrative constraints,to Darwin’s (2020) restructuring of gender diversitywithin a trans* umbrella with infinitepossibilities, rather than pinpointing trans identity on a finite spectrum, to Konnelly’s (2021)connection between transmedicalism, resistance and strategic assimilation to transmedicalistexpectations—there is insurmountable evidence that this normative process of becomingculturally legible as trans holds the most power in a transnormative culture. This is but one of aninfinite number of lived trans narratives—most of which are still (dis)missed in cis and transspaces—with consequences for non-legibility or hyper-visibility ranging from microaggressivecomments to assault or even murder (Clark, 2019).49CHAPTER 3—METHODOLOGY &METHODSTHEORYTo meaningfully reflect on the chosen texts—as well as my lived experience—in relationto hegemonic masculinity and hegemonic Christian theology, I must first delineate a frameworkthat fine tunes the lens in which I view this content. I will be applying a theoretical frameworkthat mixes queer theology, intersectional feminist theory, transfeminist theory, body theology,and Black theology to deconstruct the personal lived experiences of being a Christian trans manin relation to the diverse experiences explored in similar research using these theories.Queer TheologyThe primary theoretical tool that I will use for my analysis of such texts is queer theology,which will be informed by the work of Patrick Cheng (2011), and some of the theorists thatinformed his work. In his book, Radical Love: An Introduction to Queer Theology, Dr. Rev.Patrick S. Cheng, an Episcopal priest and queer man, explicates queer theology as the following:“If theology is defined as ‘talk about God’ (that is, theos [God] + logos [word]), then queertheology can be understood as queer talk about God…This…leads to the question of what exactlyis meant by the term ‘queer’…[There are] at least three meanings of the word…as an umbrellaterm…transgressive action and…erasing boundaries” (Cheng, 2011). Queer as an umbrella termrefers to those who identify with non-heteronormative sexualities and/or gender identities, ormore simply put, anyone who is not straight/cisgender. Queer as transgressive action refers tointentional reclaiming of the word which used to only have negative connotations. Chengdescribes transgressive action, i.e., to “queer” something, as “engag[ing] with a methodologythat challenges and disrupts the status quo” (Cheng, 2011). Queer as erasing boundaries refersto the erasure and/or deconstruction of binary thinking around sexuality and gender. “Queertheology is a shorthand term for theology that is done by and for LGBT people” (Cheng, 2011).50Queer people can use queer theology as a spiritual, tangible tool to free themselves from thecis-heteronormative chains that keep them from knowing God’s love. This is a theology thatserves its people, rather than the power relations dividing them, and possesses the power tobring all Christians closer to God through coming to know more of Their creation.Sources of Queer TheologyThere are four key sources of—places queer theologians drawn from to develop, teach,and practice—queer theology: scripture (reading holy texts), tradition (what church authoritiesteach), reason (drawing on philosophy), and experience (human experience of the Divine).Queer ScriptureScripture has traditionally been used to shame queer sexuality, heavily relying on seven"clobber passages"—a term used by LGBTQIA+-affirming theologians, theorists, activists, andChristians to refer to the Bible passages that get used ad nauseum by those who arenon-affirming to "clobber"/condemn all queer relations—Genesis 1-2, 19:1-38; Leviticus 18:22,20:13; Romans 1:25-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:9-10 and Jude 6-7 (NKJV, 1982). InGenesis 19—the story of Sodom and Gomorrah—two “angelic visitors” stay the night in the townof Sodom, but the “lawless men” of Sodom demand that Lot, the visitor’s host, kick them out tobe “judged.” The visitors escape with Lot, and shortly after, God sets fire to the town of Sodomand its sister town, Gomorrah (Gen. 19:1-38). Under hegemonic theology, this passage isinterpreted as God punishing queer men, on the assumption that the visitors were having sex inLot’s home. However, God burned down the towns after Lot got the visitors to safety.One common interpretation from queer theology is that God was condemning the"lawless men’s" inhospitality toward strangers, turning them out to the fatal desertenvironment. This interpretation is not part of a new theological standpoint; in 1995, queertheologian, Nancy Wilson, developed a queer theology of sexuality in Our Tribe, that focuses on51the “gift of promiscuity” and “bodily hospitality” that many folks in the LGBTQIA+ communityare shamed for embodying (Wilson, 1995). Giving someone the gift of consensual bodilypleasure outside of marriage is not shameful; it is something women have been doing for otherwomen for centuries. The only reason this is seen as shameful outside of a queer theology ofsexuality is because men are not required for every pleasurable experience in a woman’s life andthat hurts entitled men’s egos. In 1997, Kathy Rudy, a lesbian ethicist, suggested thatnon-monogamous sex acts—including group and anonymous sex—can be seen as a “progressiveethic of hospitality” (Rudy, 1997). In the context of lesbian anonymous group sex, everyoneinvolved is there because they want to be. It is an act of bodily autonomy with no ulteriormotives, unrealistic expectations, or obligations.In the context of my methodology, a “progressive ethic of hospitality” can be applied tostepping outside our own biases to give the gift of genuinely listening to another human being’sscriptural interpretations or religious experiences without always trying to play devil’s advocateon an issue that may not directly affect us but deeply affects them, just for the "reciprocaltheological exercise" that actually causes them further minority stress/trauma. Providing aprogressive ethic of hospitality is churches putting the substantial effort in to make historicallyunwelcoming Christian spaces a place of refuge and solace for God’s racialized, disabled, queerand trans children, as well as those still grieving for the ones who did not make it this far toexperience such hospitality. The goal of any theological conversation should not be "winning theargument," but rather, all parties involved learning something new about each other,themselves, and God. In 2006, 30 LGBTQIA+ theologians, ministers, and writers collaboratedin The Queer Bible Commentary, a compilation of commentary on all Hebrew and Christianscriptures. Commentary came from a variety of theoretical frameworks, including queer theoryand various other feminist, deconstructionist, post-colonial, utopian, sociological andhistorical-critical theories (Guest et. al., 2006). This was the first theological commentary of itskind, bringing together voices that have been deliberately silenced in the Church and theological52study since the Church's inception. It sparked new conversations, theories, and expansion onolder theories that paved the way for more people to finally resonate with scripture.Queer TraditionQueer theology also draws on traditions from both Church history and church leaders’teachings over the last 2000 years. One of the most influential texts is Anglican priest DerrickSherwin Bailey’s (1955) study,Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. For thefirst time in the Church’s history, Bailey challenged the traditionally anti-queer views of Churchteachings up to that point. Though it was not widely accepted by other clergy or theologians in1955, it became a catalyst for further challenges to traditional Church teachings includingBoswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance & Homosexuality (1980) and Same-Sex Unions inPre-Modern Europe (1994), Brooten’s Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses toFemale Homoeroticism (1996), Brown’s Immodest Acts: The Life of a Lesbian Nun inRenaissance Italy (1986) and Jordan’s Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology (1997).Reclaiming the Christian tradition allows queer theology not to create LGBTQIA+ storiesin traditional Church teachings, but to bring to light the stories that were always there. Queertheology works under the premise that queer love/people were not always viewed in a negative,sinful light in the Church tradition. Traditions that continue to be challenged by queer theologyinclude churches from various denominations still not blessing same-sex unions—even afterPope Francis declared priests can now bless such unions as of July 11, 2023 (CBC,2023)—denying the importance of sex for pleasure, diminishing women’s roles in the home andsociety, and requiring confession with a priest for natural human desires (Cheng, 2011).Queer ReasonQueer theology also draws upon reason—humans’ ability to observe the world and usephilosophy to know God. This part of queer theology works on the premise that God can be53known by observing nature and all God’s Creation. Typically, Catholic theologians have used"reason" to justify the Church’s stance that non-procreative sex acts—same-sex intercourseincluded—are intrinsically evil and against the laws of nature. But progressive Roman Catholictheologian, Gareth Moore challenged this teaching by asking a series of reason-derivedquestions in his book, A Question of Truth: Christianity & Homosexuality: “Is it true that allsame-sex acts and relationships are intrinsically evil? Is it true that all LGBT people are unhappyand poorly adjusted? Is it true that same-sex acts and relationships do not occur naturally in thecreated order?” (Moore, 2003). Moore, along with queer theologians agree that the answer to allthese questions is no. Through observation of the world around us and basic philosophicalquestioning, love, or even just consensual pleasure, between two or more consenting adults isnot evil, not all LGBTQIA+ people are unhappy or maladjusted, and there is an abundance ofevidence illustrating hundreds of other species practicing same-sex relations including fish,reptiles, birds, and primates (Roughgarden, 2013). These are species that the Bible says Godmade before humans; if hundreds of these species are free of condemnation for their pleasuresand unique reproductive capacities, then there is no theological justification for condemninghumans for acting on the uniquities of our genders and sexualities.We can also use reason to observe the countless priests, pastors, ministers, and bishopswho have come out as gay—some forced to leave their ordained position—while others’prohibited sexuality "comes out" sideways through espousing anti-homosexual rhetoric at thealtar while sexually abusing powerless, young boys behind rectory doors, shielded from takingaccountability by the Vatican. To Moore and other queer theologians, simply observing what isright in front of us is not dissent; the Roman Catholic Church simply lacks sound argumentsagainst homosexuality or gender variance besides flimsy interpretation of a few Bible verses thathave been re-translated over 450 times in the English language alone. Moore is correct: “Thechurch teaches badly” (Moore, 2003). The Church is going to need stronger, less tautologicalevidence than, "that is how we have always interpreted it, so it must be so."54Queer theologians also draw upon reason using post-structuralist philosophy—inparticular, queer theory—to construct their theology. As stated before, queer theory rejects alltraditional, mutually exclusive, fixed categorizations of identity. This is not to say that queertheologians deny the existence of physiological differences between people, but that suchphysiological differences do not dictate any inherent gender identity, sexuality, interests, careerprospects, or role in the family. Reason tells queer theologians that forcing correlation betweenphysiological body parts with gender/social roles is not "natural law;" it is a matter of socialconvention that is constantly changing (Cheng, 2011). Queer theologians of color draw onpost-colonial theory to observe the existence of hybridity and intersectionality among humans.With queer reason, it is impossible to ignore the socially constructed categories—with room foroverlap—that have real, tangible impacts in our daily lives: race, ethnicity, class, sexuality,gender identity, ability, religion, body type, et cetera (Cheng, 2011).Queer Experience:Finally, queer theologians draw on lived experience as a source for creating theology.Queer theology operates under a belief that God acts in specific ways in each of our unique livedexperiences. LGBTQIA+ people’s lived experiences are included in this belief and their queeredperspective is critical to understand and practice a theology that is inclusive of all God’s people(Cheng, 2011). There are thousands of anthologies, memoirs, autobiographies, and poetry booksauthored by LGBTQIA+ Christians on queer lived theologies including:● Sanctified: An Anthology of Poetry by LGBT Christians (Cannon, ed., 2008)● This is my Body: Hearing the Theology of Transgender Christians (Beardsley &O’Brien, eds., 2016) and;● I Rise: The Transformation of Toni Newman (Newman, 2011).55LGBTQIA+ Christians’ lived experiences share a common theological thread. Theirjourney to knowing God and embracing their queerness are not mutually exclusive. These twojourneys are lived simultaneously. Both are deeply spiritual processes, and both lead to living anauthentic, joyful, faithful life (Cheng, 2011), with each individual LGBTQIA+ Christiancontinuously growing and building their personal relationship with God, with no need forChurch approval. This personal relationship with God is central to developing and practicing aqueer theology, with no two queer theologies looking exactly alike, but all authentic and sacred.Strands of Queer TheologyThere are four strands/steps that queer theologians have taken since the 1950s to evolveinto today’s more expansive field of queer theology, the first three drawing from pre-existingtheologies first developed by other marginalized groups within Abrahamic faiths: apologetic,liberation, relational and queer theology.Apologetic TheologyThe apologetic strand of queer theology started in the mid-1950s, with theologiansfocusing on how LGBTQIA+ people can live faithful lives without sacrificing their sexuality orgender identity and should be accepted as full church members (Cheng, 2011). Robert Wood, anopenly gay Congregationalist minister, wrote Christ & The Homosexual: Some Observations(1960), in which he argued for the church to stay true to the message, “God loves all Hischildren,” and to “act with love,” encouraging gays to “participate in church activities (Wood,1960 qtd. in Cheng, 2011). This follows the "love the sinner, hate the sin" rhetoric still pervasivein churches of various denominations. But, in 1960, this was a significant step away from thevisceral God Hates F*gs rhetoric still seen at religious based anti-LGBTQIA+ protests today (see:the notorious Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas).56Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott published Is The Homosexual My Neighbor?: APositive Christian Response (1978), in which, they discuss historical, biblical, scientific, andethical arguments in favor of accepting gays and lesbians in the church, with an additionalchallenge to Christians to accept gays and lesbians as Christian neighbors, just as Jesus acceptedthe outcasts of His day (Scanzoni & Mollenkott, 1978 qtd. in Cheng, 2011). Teetering ontolerance but not acceptance, apologetics theology was the first step toward true acceptance ofLGBTQIA+ people. Although, from personal experience, while a myriad of individual churcheshave achieved true acceptance, I still do not see a significant shift toward acceptance at theoverarching "State level" of the Church. In other words, acceptance of LGBTQIA+ people havenot been mainstreamed into Christian doctrine; it has not become the default of Christianteaching to love and accept all God’s children regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.Apologetics is not the main strand applied to my analysis, but I will offer different types ofpro-trans arguments—historical, biblical, scientific, and ethical.Liberation TheologyThe liberation strand of queer theology started in the late 1960s, modeled after otherliberation theologies of the decade—Latin American and Black liberation theology—both ofwhich were based on the Exodus story of the Israelites’ liberation (Cheng, 2011). The primaryfocus of liberation theology, under a queer lens, is not just getting the church to acceptLGBTQIA+ people, but also, demonstrating how liberation from heterosexism andhomophobia—and the freedom to be one’s true self—is “at the heart of the gospel message andChristian theology” (Cheng, 2011). This strand argues that God is never neutral on social justiceissues and always stands on the side of the poor and oppressed (Gutiérrez, 1973; Cone, 1969;1970; 1975). Sally Gearheart and William Johnson edited an anthology called LovingWomen/Loving Men: Gay Liberation & The Church (1974), in which Johnson argues “passiveacceptance of injustice is no longer possible for lesbian and gay people,” proposing liberation57goals for the Church: “affirmation of same-sex relationships, electing gay people into churchleadership, encouraging gay people to enroll in seminaries and developing a totally new theologyof sexuality which would reflect the validity of same-sex relationships as well as otherrelationships” (Gearheart & Johnson, 1974 qtd. in Cheng, 2011).J. Michael Clark, a gay theologian, wrote A Place to Start: Toward an Unapologetic GayLiberation Theology (1989), in which he advocated for creating a theology that recognizes theimportance of “experience as a source for theology” (Clark, 1989 qtd. in Cheng, 2011). In asimilar vein three years later, Robert Williams wrote, Just as I am: A Practical Guide to BeingOut, Proud & Christian (1992), in which he argued that following suit with "Liberation Theology101," only LGBTQIA+ people can ascertain what they deem to be sin and morality forthemselves, and “any straight cleric’s’ attempt to define sin for gays and lesbians is patriarchaland condescending, and ultimately, blasphemy” (Williams, 1992 qtd. in Cheng 2011). Liberationtheology will hold significant importance in my analysis, particularly liberation from not justheterosexism and homophobia, but also from hegemonic masculinity/Christian theology.Relational TheologyThe relational strand of queer theology was first developed in the late 60’s/early 70’s bylesbian theologians in response to the omission of women’s issues in theological reflection, withthe primary goal of finding God in mutual relationships with another person or in nature(Cheng, 2011). Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, founders of Daughters of Bilitis, published ALesbian Approach to Theology, in which they argued that the “despairing homosexual mustunderstand that [they] too are a child of God” (Martin & Lyon, 1971 qtd. in Cheng, 2011). In1974, Sally Gearheart wrote The Miracle of Lesbianism, with a focus on the importance ofrelationships for lesbian women. Come 1989, Carter Heyward expanded on these relationshipsbetween women by drawing from Audre Lorde’s idea of the erotic as sacred: God is not extrinsic58to sex or gender identity as God is intertwined with all our gendered and sexualizedidiosyncrasies (Heyward, 1989 qtd. in Cheng, 2011).Mary Hunt, co-founder of the Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics & Ritual, said inFierce Tenderness: A Feminist Theology of Friendship (1991), that human friendship—whethersexual intimacy is a factor or not—is a “useful paradigm of right relation for the whole ofcreation” (Hunt, 1991 qtd. in Cheng, 2011). Elizabeth Stuart, a lesbian theologian, expanded onHunt’s paradigm of friendship in Just Good Friends: Towards a Lesbian & Gay Theology ofRelationships (1995), arguing that Christians need to practice an “ethic of friendship” and to“sacramentalize friendship,” as it is in friendship where God is always found (Stuart, 1995 qtd. inCheng, 2011). Gary Comstock, former Protestant chaplain, concurs in Gay Theology WithoutApology (1993) that Jesus should be seen more as a Divine friend than a Divine master(Comstock, 1993 qtd. in Cheng, 2011). It is in friendship that gay Christians dying in the heightof the AIDS epidemic found peace in the spiritual journey between life in the flesh and eternallife of the soul. John Fortunato (1987) believed the only way for these men to deal with theiranger and pain was through “acts of loving”—from those who tended to, comforted, and lovedthem in those final days, to researchers driven to finding better treatments and a cure.Queer TheologyThe queer theological strand, itself, is based on the theoretical work of queer theoristsincluding Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick in the 90s/early 2000’s. Queertheologies include bisexual and transgender theologies since it is these discourses thatinherently deconstruct binary categorizations of sexuality and gender identity, and view genderon a spectrum or continuum (Cheng, 2011). This strand came of age in 2000, when MarcellaAlthaus-Reid released their groundbreaking, controversial theological text, Indecent Theology:Theological Perversions in Sex, Gender & Politics. In this book, Althaus-Reid confronts59social/religious taboos by challenging the “heterosexual and patriarchal assumptions oftraditional theologies” (Althaus-Reid, 2000 qtd. in Cheng, 2011).Virginia Ramey Mollenkott's Omnigender: A Trans Religious Approach, was animportant milestone for trans theologies within queer theology. Mollenkott (2001) breaks downthe issues with the binary gender system—even within some queer theologies—in relation toChristianity and Judaism, primarily traditional understandings of trans people remaining withinthe male-female binary. It was this essay that launched several more theorists to offer theirinsights into experience outside the MTF/FTM trans binary from a traditional Christianstandpoint, including Tanis (2003), Tigert & Tirabassi (2004), and Althaus-Reid & Isherwood(2009). I will be following suit with the current trend in queer theology of drawing on othertheories like intersectionality, transfeminist theory, body theology and Black theology to expandthe field of queer theology toward complete inclusivity, with the broader goal of deconstructingbinary categorizations of socially constructed identities beyond gender and sexuality, usinganother overarching theme and analytical tool: radical love.Radical Love: Central to a Queer TheologyVital to the application of queer theory and queer theology is the concept of radical love:“a love so extreme that it dissolves our existing boundaries, whether they are boundaries thatseparate us from other people, that separate us from preconceived notions of sexuality andgender identity, or that separate us from God” (Cheng, 2011). Christians believe in a higherpower who dissolved the boundaries between death and life, time and eternity, and betweenhumans and the divine. In queer theory, radical love challenges social boundaries aroundsexuality and gender identity. Fixed categorizations—life vs death, time vs eternity, human vsDivine, straight vs gay, male vs female—reduce these concepts to essentialist rather than socialconstructions, with no room for nuance, diversity, extraordinary rarities, miracles or sacralities.60Radical love is not about abolishing labels or arguing in favor of a lawless, immoralexistence. As St. Paul teaches us: “love is patient and kind, and not envious, boastful, arrogant,or rude” (Saint Paul, NKJV, 1982). It is a love premised upon safe, sane, consensual behavior,therefore, Cheng asserts, “nonconsensual behavior—such as rape or sexual exploitation—is bydefinition excluded from radical love” (Cheng, 2011). Radical love breaks down barriers andboundaries between oppositional, black-and-white identities and groups, and makes space foreverything in-between and beyond two ends of a traditionally finite spectrum. It dispelsselfishness and promotes interconnectedness and mutual respect between all living beings.Thus, radical love is pertinent to utilizing my next framework: intersectional feminist theory.Intersectional Feminist TheoryMy use of queer theology will be guided by a second theoretical tool, intersectionalfeminist theory, which will be informed by the works of Kimberlé Crenshaw (1990), Dill &Zambrana (2009), and Collins & Bilge (2016). This is a framework for analyzing anddeconstructing the multitude of socially imposed binaries and oppressions within all people inrelation to others. Intersectionality as a concept was popularized by Dr. Kimberlé Crenshaw, aleading scholar of critical race theory and professor at UCLA School of Law and Columbia Law.Crenshaw states that intersectionality is meant:to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics ‘intersect’ withone another and overlap…individuals have individual identities that intersect in waysthat impact how they are viewed, understood, and treated…Intersectionality operates asboth the observance and analysis of power imbalances, and the tool by which thosepower imbalances could be eliminated altogether. (Intersectionality Wars, 2019)Regarding ‘observance and analysis of power imbalances,’ Dill & Zambrana offer theirinsights on the concept. In their article, ‟Critical Thinking About Inequality: An Emerging61Lens,” Dill & Zambrana (2009) outline three pragmatic facets of Crenshaw’s framing ofintersectionality that can be applied to any social justice issue. They state that intersectionality:1. Grounds theory in the lived experiences of the marginalized to identifycounter-hegemonic narratives,2. Pushes theory beyond essentialized identity categories by allowing for nuancedaccounts of complexity and variation within and across difference,3. Attends to multiple dimensions of power (structural, disciplinary, hegemonic &interpersonal) that operate with and through people’s lives.(Dill & Zambrana, 2009)To recognize and explicate intersectionality in lived experiences of trans Christian men, we mustaddress how multiple dimensions of power—structural, disciplinary, hegemonic, andinterpersonal—shape their gender, sexuality, and religious identity in relation to other peopleand institutions, and how these dimensions vary across other interstices of their identity.Throughout my analysis, I will be extracting examples of each of the dimensions ofpower under an intersectional rubric provided by Sirma Bilge and Patricia Hill Collins. Thestructural domain of power refers to the fundamental structures of social institutions such asjob markets, housing, education, and health. The cultural domain of power emphasizes theincreasing significance of ideas and culture in the organization of power relations and helpsmanufacture and disseminate this narrative of fair play that claims that we all have equal accessto opportunities across social institutions, that competition among individuals or groups(teams) are fair, and that resulting patterns of winners and losers have been fairly accomplished.The disciplinary domain of power refers to how rules and regulations are fairly or unfairlyapplied to people based on race, sexuality, class, gender, age, ability, and nation, and relatedcategories. And the interpersonal domain of power refers to how individuals experience theconvergence of structural, cultural, and disciplinary power (Collins & Bilge, 2016).62Transfeminist TheoryThe third theoretical tool for my analysis is transfeminism, which will be informed bythe works of Sara Ahmed (2016) and Cristan Williams (2020). Sara Ahmed shares how she, as acisgender lesbian, came to understand transfeminism from an ally’s perspective: “When we areasked where we are from or who we are, or even what we are, we experience...a hammering awayat our being. To experience that hammering is to be given a hammer, a tool through which we,too, can chip away at the surfaces of what is, or who is, including the very categories throughwhich personhood is made meaningful...that have chipped away at us…This reciprocalhammering can be thought of as an affinity. I want to explore my relationship to transfeminismas an affinity of hammers” (Ahmed, 2016). In this passage, Ahmed conveys transfeminism as arelationship between how we are attacked for whatever social categories are imposed upon us,those we naturally embody, and how we can respond to such attacks.She proceeds to illustrate transfeminism as a form of diversity work in her book OnBeing Included: Racism & Diversity in Institutional Life. Ahmed discerns diversity work in twoways: “the work we do when we aim to transform an institution (often by opening it up to thosewho have been historically excluded), and the work we do when we do not quite inhabit thenorms of an institution” (Ahmed, 2016). In the context of a trans person’s lived experience,Ahmed says, “we can think of gender, too, as an institution. We can think of gender norms asplaces in which we dwell [i.e., cis heteronormativity]: some are more at home than others [i.e.,cisgender]; some are unhoused by how others are at home [i.e., cis privilege]. When we aretalking about the policing of gender, we are talking about walls, those ways in which some areblocked from entry, from passing through [i.e., passing privilege]” (Ahmed, 2016). Solidarity cantake form when we recognize others who are ‘unhoused’ or ‘blocked’ because of one or multiplesocial marginalizations. Ahmed calls this form of coalition building an ‟affinity of hammers.”Through this affinity of hammers, shared experience of pieces of ourselves being chipped away63by systemic oppressions, “we witness the work each other is doing, and we recognize each otherthrough that work…we take up arms when we combine our forces” (Ahmed, 2016).Applying transfeminist theory to an analysis of data regarding hegemonic theology andhegemonic Christian theology allows a deeper observation of the binary social power relationsbetween those who embody hegemonic masculinity within hegemonic Christian institutions andthose who embody counter-hegemonic masculinities within those same institutions. Suchinstitutions are not limited to Christian places of worship, as there is a major artery carryinghegemonic Christian theology/ideology to the heart of every social/government institution inCanada—familial, political, economic, and educational included. The affinity of hammers Ahmeddescribes amongst all people who experience some form of “hammering” at their identity can beapplied to the experiences of Christian trans men and the allyship they discover in theirrelationships within and outside their church communities. Transfeminist theory is also easilyapplied to the ongoing diversity work within Christian institutions to work toward opening themup to those who have been historically excluded (i.e., queer/trans people) and the emotionallabor that is necessary for survival in the meantime—as people who do not inhabit the norms ofa Christian institution—until those norms have been successfully transformed. I will be usingtransfeminist theory to reflect on lived experiences as examples of:● Gender as institution & the gender norms Christian trans men speaking throughthese texts must “live in,”● Some feel “at home,” others “unhoused” by peers’ comfortability in these norms● Walls that block trans men’s entry into privileges their peers receive byembodying hegemonic masculinity in their community.Integral to using integrity-based transfeminist theory is the inclusion of transfeministtheory according to theorists with lived experience as trans persons. Cristan Williams, a transhistorian and pioneer in addressing the practical needs of transgender people in Houston,64Texas, writes extensively on the pitfalls of a strictly ontological understanding of womanhood,which carries over to an understanding of manhood. In The Ontological Woman: A History ofDeauthentication, Dehumanization & Violence (2020), Williams cites Simone de Beauvoir insuggesting how “the move to root feminism in an inherent biological, psychological, or reifiedontology was to endorse the very essentialism upon which patriarchy was built” (de Beauvoir,2009 qtd. in Williams, 2020). Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) rely on thisreasoning to justify the belief that a woman is defined by her "womanly nature" or "God-given"experience of female embodiment. This is an ontological claim, that is, a belief about the natureof being, of non-cultural essential biological attributes like chromosomes, bone morphology, andthe capacity for conceiving, pregnancy, and giving birth (Williams, 2020).Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism exacts gains from a woman’s or man’s forced lossof humanity and gender authenticity. Williams asserts that a sex-essentialist discourse willalways be rigged to ensure authenticity is withheld from trans experiences. However, it is notjust sex-essentialist discourse that acts to withhold gender authenticity from trans women andmen, in both Christian and secular spaces. Disability and race are also weaponized to policetrans (wo)manhood, and body theology and Black theology are the next frontier to combatingthese additional attacks on trans authenticity in the church.Theological Intersection Between Disability & RaceBody TheologyNancy Eisland, author of The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology ofDisability (1994), writes on the connection between recognizing Jesus’ post-resurrectionwounds and tackling inaccessibility for disabled people in Christian spaces and theology.Liberatory theology of disability, or body theology, states that the foundation of any Christiantheology is a belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, “recognized as a deity whose hands, feet,65and side bear the marks of profound physical impairment” (Eisland, 1994). When Jesus wasresurrected, His disciples saw the scars on His back and sides from the lashing and the holes inHis hands and feet from crucifixion and did not think less of Him or pity Him for hisdisfigurement; they recognized His sacrifice as a gift from God, the gift of a savior withcompassion and empathy. In body theology, disabled bodies are not a result of sin or in need ofvirtuous Christian charity. People with disabilities have gifts that the Christian community canlearn from if they commit to the transformation out of ableist theology.Biblical scholar, Christian Fetherolf, quotes a Bible verse in Body for a Temple, Templefor a Body: An Examination of Bodily Metaphors in 1 Corinthians (2010), that illustrates Godvaluing people of all abilities:The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need for you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘Ihave no need of you.’ On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weakerare indispensable…if one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member ishonored, all rejoice together with it. (1 Cor. 12:14 qtd. in Fetherolf, 2010)If Jesus had a human body, and through the life and death of that body, the world found asavior, then why do we believe the flesh is tainted by sin and of no value to Christian identity?Why is altering the body not seen as a spiritual journey toward authenticity in God’s image?Black TheologyIn Strange Fruit: The Cross and the Lynching Tree, Black theologian and professor ofsystematic theology, James H. Cone furthers the conversation around embodying theology bymaking connections between inferiority and disposability of Black bodies and the crucifixion ofJesus. Cone states that there are some Black theologians who connect with Jesus’ body after theresurrection. However, most feel a deeper connection with Jesus in the crucifixion, itself:66When we encounter the crucified Christ today, He is a humiliated Black Christ, a lynchedBlack body…Christ is made Black through God’s loving solidarity with lynched Blackbodies and divine judgement against the demonic forces of white supremacy. Like aBlack naked body swinging on a lynching tree, the cross of Christ was an utterly offensiveaffair…subjecting the victim to the utmost indignity. (Cone, 2014)While European theologians were valuing the importance of the soul over the flesh, BlackChristians were holding onto the physicality of Jesus in their theology and saw the importance ofremembering Jesus’ humanity, as He walked, talked, ate, slept, cried, and suffered like them.Black womanist theologian, Kelly Douglas, reminds white Christians that because Blackslaves were barred from formal theological education, they had to produce their own languagederived from experience to understand God’s work in their lives (Douglas, 1999). Christian Blackslaves understood Jesus as a friend who walked and talked with them, who listened to theirpain, understood their grief, and dried their tears. Faith from their lived experiences created asustaining, more comprehensible and compassionate Christianity—another gift to thechurch—like lived experiences from Christians with disabilities. Ignoring the contributions toChristianity from body and Black theology is to say that some bodies are "not as holy" as othersand do not represent the Image of God, as they are effectively dehumanized. The same will beargued in my analysis for queer theology’s contributions to Christianity.This mixture of queer theology, intersectionality, transfeminism, body and Blacktheology constitutes a scholarly approach that is community-centered, gender affirming, andgives highest authority to self-representation of race, class, and disability, intersecting withgender, sexuality, and faith experiences, creating a lived—rather than Bible-based—theology.67METHODSNarrative AnalysisI will be conducting a narrative analysis of two memoirs written by trans Christian men:My Name is Brett: Truths from a Trans Christian (2015) by Brett Ray, and Trans Boomer: AMemoir of My Journey from Female to Male (2015) by Lee Jay. I am analyzing memoirsbecause the personal nature of such texts allows for a study that is community-centered, genderand sexuality affirming, and prioritizes self-determination—all vital components of a discourserooted in queer theology, intersectionality, transfeminist theory, body theology and Blacktheology. I am prioritizing first-hand, lived theologies over sole reliance on academic theory. Iwill be utilizing the following definition of narrative analysis:a genre of analytic frames whereby researchers interpret stories…told within the contextof research and/or are shared in everyday life. Scholars who conduct this type of analysismake diverse—yet equally substantial and meaningful—interpretations and conclusionsby focusing on different elements…how the story is structured, what functions the storyserves…the substance of the story, and how the story is performed. (Allen, 2017)Challenging & Deconstructing Gender & Theological Hegemony Through MemoirIn, Becoming Culturally (Un)intelligible: Exploring the Terrain of Trans Life Writings,Evan Vipond (2019) utilizes Enke’s (2012) work to illustrate how trans writers are using lifewriting to claim not only literary authorship, but authorship of their own identity andexperiences in the story they live every day. Trans life writing is a revolutionary act, VivianeNamaste (2000) argues, because trans people continue to be denied the right toself-determination and epistemological validity for their lived experiences. Trans erasure—thesystematic silencing and/or eradication of trans voices, identities, and authenticity via68cis-heteronormative institutions—is a clear human rights violation. But this human rightsviolation continues to occur because of what Judith Butler (1990) refers to as culturalintelligibility: the social process of predetermined criteria being created and used within cis-hetsocial institutions to judgewho is legible as authentically human, andwho orwhat is not. Blackand other racialized feminists have theorized on this concept of cultural intelligibility longbefore Butler formally coined the term. We do not have to look far back to see a long history ofBlack/non-white people being excluded from human status in a culture that places the white,heteropatriarchal, masculinist, Eurocentric, ableist, bourgeois male at the top of the socialhierarchy (Stryker & Currah, 2017). Transfeminists and Black feminists—along with disabilityfeminists—have the potential to be strong allies to each other, especially with the amount ofoverlapping systemic subordination of intersectionally marginalized identities.Vipond examines mainstream trans life writing texts published between 1967 and 2017to unpack hegemonic trans narratives that remain underrepresented because of this hegemonichold on trans experience: Jorgensen’s Christine Jorgensen, Jan Morris’s Conundrum, MarioMartino’s Emergence, Chaz Bono’s Transition, and Janet Mock’s Redefining Realness andSurpassing Certainty. Vipond categorizes these memoirs as mainstream trans memoirs for fivereasons. (1) All of these authors were published with well-established publishing houses andmarketed to the public (i.e., cisgender readership). (2) All of these authors were able toarticulate their stories—in English—in a culturally legible way. (3) All these authors haveachieved financial success. (4) All of these authors were openly trans before publishing. And (5)Most of these authors’ gender expression is culturally legible as gender-conforming, largelybecause they were able to access some level of medical gender-affirming care and identify withinthe trans binary of trans women and trans men. Each of these reasons are not coincidental andall play a part in the formation and sustaining of transnormativity in trans life writing, whichdictate the financial and social success of that memoir, and in turn, the trans author.69Publishing with a well-established publishing house—that has also published cisgenderlife writing and marketed to the cisgender majority—is a privilege granted to trans memoirs thatadhere to hegemonic gender expectations (read: white, able-bodied, gender norm-confirming,binary-identifying trans people). Vipond (2019) draws attention to the societal reality that sometrans folks naturally fall into these trans narrative tropes, while others must reconstruct theirlife story to fit as closely as possible to these tropes to be legible to the cis-heteronormativereader. While fitting into this overarching trope may achieve literary success, Butler (1990)points to a major pitfall of prioritizing cultural legibility over authenticity: erasure/obscurity ofparts of one’s identity and experiences. Examples of such erasure include:(a) Deliberate distancing of queerness from transness (Ahmed, 2006),(b) Adopting the ‘trapped in the wrong body’ narrative (Spade, 2006),(c) Reliance on language of ideological baggage of two genders (Scott-Dixon, 2006),(d) Reducing transition to three stages of medical transition (Ames, 2005) and/or,(e) Situating transness nearest to white (wo)manhood (Skidmore, 2011).These examples of trans erasure and obscurity make up what Jay Prosser refers to as a narrativemap, “available for trans persons to replicate and, in doing so, become culturally intelligible”(Prosser, 1998). Previous trans memoirs—those by Jorgenson, Morris, Martino, Bono and Mock,for example—have tried to establish a coherent, continuous timeline to their respective genderhistories (Butler, 1990), within each of their respectivewaves of trans memoir.Trans memoir is categorized intowaves or generational cohorts (Meyerowitz, 2002;Rondot, 2016), similar to the re-telling of feminist histories (Califia, 1997; Stryker, 2008). Whilethe wave metaphor provides convenient differentiation between periods, generational cohorts,and ideological trends, feminist scholar Astrid Henry (2012) says, it “presumes people of aparticular…generation share a singular ideological position and denies the possibility ofcross-generational identification across political lines.” Jorgensen, Morris and Martino belong70to the samewave of trans life writing; but each has a different understanding of gender and sex,some seeing gender rooted in biology, others seeing gender spiritually (Califia, 1997).It is important to note the limitations of a mono-marginalization framework of gender.Christine Jorgenson is the first American trans person to undergo gender affirmation surgery inDenmark (1950), and the first trans person to become internationally recognized. DelisaNewton, a Black trans woman, was one of the first to undergo GCS in the US and was dubbed“the first negro sex-change” in 1963 (Meyerowitz, 2002). The fact that a racial signifier wasapplied to Newton’s medical transition, but not Jorgenson’s, reveals how whiteness stands in asa universal conceptualization of trans embodiment; a white trans person’s race is never includedin their public narrative (i.e., “Jorgenson is the first knownwhite American trans person toundergo GAS”). Thewhite as universal ideology placed Jorgenson’s autobiography in theliterary canon of what trans scholars Califia and Stryker name as the first wave of trans lifewriting that was markedly influential in establishing the “rulebook” for mainstreammarketability of trans life writing. Vipond (2019) asserts, if this is the case, then the first wave oftrans life writing was predominantly white, leaving little space for trans persons of color to takeup literary and literal space (i.e., authority, authenticity, agency) in a transnormative culture.Data SelectionFor the purpose of this research, I have chosen two memoirs written by trans men whodo self-identify within a trans binary, but have all published under smaller, lesser-knownpublishing houses or independently, were all marketed to trans people and cisgender peoplewho want to learn and become better allies, and none of them have achieved substantialfinancial success or notoriety from the general, i.e. cis, public. It is through these two memoirsthat I plan to challenge hegemony in cis and trans masculinity, as well as in the hegemonicChristian institutions in which masculinity is performed and policed.71I have also chosen these memoirs written not just by trans men, but Christian trans menwho kept their Christian faith in some capacity and integrated their gender and religiousidentity. The fact that it was as difficult as it was to find two memoirs by trans men whoremained Christian throughout and post-medical/legal transition, and included their religiousjourney with their trans journey, concurrently, is significant to this research. Most transmemoirs are written by authors who either grew up religious but left their faith uponself-discovery and acceptance of their trans identity, or by those who never/very loosely adheredto a religion (Christianity or another faith). As a Christian trans man, if I were to write a memoiron my concurrent journey between my faith and gender identity, it would be criticized both bynon-gender-affirming Christians and non-faith-affirming trans people.Because of the long history of judgment and persecution of the LGBTQIA+ communityfrom Christian institutions, it is understandable but unfortunate that those who want tointegrate their faith with their gender identity continue to face gatekeeping from either side,simply for embodying a unique truth in their lived experience. So, for those who choose to sharetheir truth, despite this strife—to push back against the limiting constraints of the both thehegemonic trans narrative and the hegemonic Christian narrative—I am arguing that memoirswritten by Christian trans men embody a counter-hegemonic trans narrative to the memoirswritten within the transnormative and cis-heteronormative literary canon.Memoir Analysis QuestionsI have discovered, in review of the literature, that hegemonic gender ideology andhegemonic Christian theology operate under the exact same foundational principles and guidingtenets. Thus, passages will be pulled from both memoirs that answer/challenge the following sixquestions of my narrative analysis in relation to lived experience of hegemonic masculinity andhegemonic Christian theology, as outlined in Figure 1, p. 25, I ask, in relation to hegemonicgender ideology, does the action, attitude, or institutional mandate in question derive from:721. An unwavering desire for power and control over others, especially via theweaponization of "masculinity," instilling fear to gain that control,2. Subordinating, degrading, and devaluing anything or anyone who challengesone’s understanding of and ability to perform cis-heteronormative masculinity,3. Need to prove one’s manhood through callous sex attitudes toward women,fetishization of violence as manly, and promotion of danger as exciting andsomething to be conquered,4. Avoidance of the feminine/fear of feminization & discouragement of emotionaldevelopment beyond anger, assertiveness, and lust,5. Adoption of us vs them competition-threat narrative, particularly through amisconstrued sense of entitlement to power, resources, and sexual satiation, or6. Holding onto ontological, essentialist, binary understandings of (wo)manhood?In relation to hegemonic Christian theology:1. Are followers held to a rigid, unyielding system of beliefs?2. Is cognitive dissonance produced in followers using conflicting dogma?3. Is all questioning discouraged and/or silenced?4. Are “outside ideologies” viewed as suspicious or a threat?5. Is pluralism of belief discouraged and/or other/no religion unacceptable?6. Is it strictly enforced that holy texts must be interpreted literally?If the answer is yes to any of these questions, the behavior or attitude exhibited by the authorthemselves, from another person in their life, or Christian institution, derives from a hegemonicgender ideology and/or hegemonic Christian theology. The examples will be explored furtherthrough queer theology, intersectionality, transfeminist theory, body theology, and Blacktheology to deconstruct and dissolve the pragmatics of guilt, shame and fear imposed on transand cis Christians for not adhering to these tenets.73CHAPTER 4—MEMOIR DISCUSSION & ANALYSISI would like to preface this analysis of Brett Ray and Lee Jay’s memoirs through a briefdiscussion of a counter-hegemonic narrative within the genre of trans life writing that these twoauthors' stories embody: Living as both Christian and trans.Christian & Trans: A Counter-Hegemonic Trans NarrativeWhile many—but not all—white trans people believe they need to distance anysemblance of, or relation to, queerness from their transness to maintain some cultural legibility(i.e. power) in their life writing, trans women of color—such as Janet Mock, Laverne Cox, andMarsha P. Johnson—have their existence questioned on additional grounds that theirracialization and transness are also incompatible, and therefore, unintelligible to the publicimaginary. Also deemed unintelligible and, oftentimes, inauthentic, are the stories of transindividuals who also identify within some realm of spirituality or religiosity. Of all the transmemoirs written in a Western context in the last fifty years, less than twenty percent have beenpublished by trans authors who grew up religious and presently maintain some religiousaffiliation. Christian trans people are one group of religious trans folks who face attacks on theircultural intelligibility from both LGBTQIA+ and Christian communities; embodiment of suchcultural intelligibility is to live out a counter-trans narrative.One trans Christian man who discusses at length the tension between LGBTQIA+communities and Christian communities is Austen Hartke, in his 2018 theological guide,Transforming: The Bible and the Lives of Transgender Christians. His application of personaland other trans folks’ experiences in queer and Christian circles illustrates the hardships ofcultural intelligibility often faced by Christian trans individuals for embodying both acounter-Christian narrative and counter-trans narrative, simultaneously. A 2013 survey fromthe Pew Research Centre found that 29% of LGBT-identified people in the USA have been74unwelcomed in religious spaces. Their 2014 study found that 70% of millennials and 58% ofAmericans overall are too judgmental and alienate the LGBT community. And approximately25% of the people interviewed who were raised in religious families, but have since left theirfaith communities, admit that negative treatment or anti-LGBT teachings were factors indeciding to leave (Hartke, 2018). The Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution in 2014declaring "gender identity confusion" to be a direct consequence of fallen human nature andemphasized required repentance from transgender people who wish to be welcomed into theKingdom of Heaven. Hartke says this presupposes all trans identities are somehow incompatiblewith a life of following Christ (Hartke, 2018).Hartke illustrates this widespread presumption of trans/Christ incompatibility throughthe biblical story of Jacob’s renaming after his struggle with God (NKJV, 1982). After this fearfulencounter, Jacob was renamed Israelmeaning ‟one who has struggled with God andpersevered”: “This imagery—this wrestling with God and humans—is incredibly familiar to transChristians who have spent a portion of their life grappling with their faith and their gender.Sometimes we must fight for our gender to be recognized and sometimes we must fight to beseen as Christians” (Hartke, 2018). While Austin found himself asking if it was possible to fullyembrace both parts of his identity and still be welcomed in his Christian community, I concur,but also argue from lived experience, that we—as trans Christians—have the additional fight tobe recognized as authentically trans—not traitors—within our trans communities when weattempt to be openly Christian in traditionally LGBTQIA+ spaces. To be labeled a traitor by bothmy Christian community and LGBTQIA+ community imposes a sense of imposter syndrome inmany of the spaces I should feel safe and welcomed in. Christians who tell me I am not living an"authentic" Christian life strip me of the gender affirmation God knows I am worthy of, andqueer/trans people who tell me I am not living an "authentic" queer/trans life are strip me of thefaith affirmation I worked for years to finally find and hold onto. Both sides do not understand75the harm they are doing to someone who has had to live a double life for too long. I havereligious traumas too, but I will not belittle a person’s faith because ofmy past.Hartke shares two other trans stories that reiterate this battle for what I will refer to asdual intelligibility between LGBTQIA+ and Christian communities. Lawrence Richardson, aBlack trans man and pastor raised in the Southern Baptist Church, shares how, when he cameout as trans, not only did he lose his faith community but also his Black community: “‘It’sdifficult to be who you are if there’s a part of you that isn’t completely accepted in a certainspace’” (Richardson qtd. in Hartke, 2018). Though this transition period of his life was arduousand faith-testing, he continued his calling to ministry: “‘Even if we didn’t want to follow, we haveno choice. The call in our souls is just that loud. I’m listening to the call of God in my life, andI’m going to follow that call wherever it leads me, even if that leads me to death, and that’s not amessage that mainstream society can take’” (Richardson qtd. in Hartke, 2018). Indeed, this is amessage mainstream media (read: cis-het media) cannot understand but is also a message oftennot taken kindly by those in the LGBTQIA+ community who have been hurt in the name of God.Hartke shares excerpts from his interview with Lynn Young, a Native Americantwo-spirit Christian, who addresses this hurt that is to blame for the continued pains of culturalincompatibility between gender diversity and Christ. In response to zir Native American friends’questioning on this matter, Young says: “‘Some of my Native Traditionalist friends who are dear,beloved people to me don’t get how in the world I could ever identify as Christian, because thatis the religion of our oppressors, the religion of the people who tried to kill us, and did kill ourancestors, and that’s all true. But that’s not Christ’s fault’” (Young qtd. in Hartke, 2018). Thoughwe have different racial and cultural backgrounds, Young is mirroring a similar sentiment in mypositionality within my introduction: God did not hurt me, people did; people abused the nameof God to abuse those deemed what I now understand to be culturally unintelligible. If what hasbeen discussed thus far is any indication, and if cultural un-intelligibility is grounded in the76current socio-cultural norms of the time, then a shift in culture—norms, beliefs, values, andbiases—may be on the horizon where gender meets faith and cultural intelligibility.With these statistics and anecdotes, it may still be confusing as to how an LGBTQIA+individual would want anything to do with religion of any kind. However, in a survey of LGBTAmericans, half of queer-identifying adults claimed a religious affiliation and seventeen percentof those adults said their faith was a particularly important part of their life (Hartke, 2018). Thismay be largely due to more LGBTQIA+ folks loosening the cultural constraints of gender andfaith to fit their whole person, rather than shattering and reconstructing themselves to fit thecurrent Western hegemonic trans and Christian narratives; Brett Ray and Lee Jay are two primeexamples of what loosening those cultural constraints can look like, and the life-long process ofbecoming culturally intelligible to one’s self in relationship to the Creator.DISCUSSIONMy Name is Brett: Truths from a Trans Christian by Brett RayInterstices of Identity & Influential Family Background:Brett wrote his memoir because he is among the more privileged trans folks who canshare their story (i.e., white and Western/geographic privilege), in hopes that it will create morespace for people embodying concurrent marginalizations to trans identity to start telling theirs.Upon publishing in 2018, Brett was in his early 30s, and identifies as a white, American, UnitedMethodist trans man. His native tongue is English. He is openly queer and attracted to women,men, and genderqueer people; Brett was dating a cis woman by the end of the memoir. He isphysically healthy, but dealing with depression and anxiety, and experienced suicidal ideation asa teen, due to gender dysphoria and lack of acceptance in his religious community anduniversity. He started heavily drinking and smoking in high school and self-identifies as arecovering alcoholic who openly shares his experiences with Alcoholics Anonymous.77Brett grew up middle class, and his parents—from the Baby Boomer Generation—alsogrew up middle class. For most of his life, he lived as an "only child" with his mom and stepdadin Kansas, US, while his sister lived with their biological dad. His parents encouraged him to goto university right after high school; he had the financial means and spiritual/academic rigor tocomplete a master’s in divinity from Duke Divinity School, a school that only accepts fivepercent of applicants, most of whom, are white, heterosexual, and upper-class. Brett had mixedexperiences of acceptance and intolerance from Duke students and faculty, managed to find afriend group that accepted him into their sorority as Bri, and continued supporting him leavingthe sorority but remained friends as Brett. Brett was hoping to use his M.Div. to become aUnited Methodist pastor but—since trans men are still prohibited from ordination—he uses thisdegree in his work with the Reconciling Ministries Network and Believe Out Loud (173).Religious Background & Perceptions of United Methodist ChurchBrett was raised United Methodist and remains United Methodist today, actively pushingfor change in the Methodist tradition to become more affirming. He is heartbroken that he isstill prohibited from being a pastor in his church—even with a Master’s of Divinity—but refusesto serve as a church leader in any other denomination because the United Methodist Church ishis home. Brett came out on social media in his early 20s and some of his peers told him he wasconfused, and this was not what God wanted for his life (147).Kansas was not where Brett wanted to attempt to pastor. It was not safe. The UnitedMethodist Church says being gay is incompatible with Christian teaching and being a"practicing" gay disqualifies you from ordination (147-8). United Methodist pastors are regularlyput on church trial and stripped of their ordination credentials simply for officiating queerweddings. Cisgender, heterosexual officials at annual conferences continue to have harmfulconversations about Brett’s "chosen" life and the lives of his queer loved ones, and pretend it is"holy conferencing," when there is nothing holy or compassionate about their "love the sinner,78hate the sin" rhetoric (149). He reflects on how strange it is that the UMC asks those in need tocome to the church for help instead of bringing help to them. He also finds it very disconcertinghow LGBTQIA+ people continue to be chased out of the church rather than welcomed in likeJesus would have welcomed them. Overall, Brett struggles with the major disconnect betweenthe United Methodist Church and the people they claim to want to serve (143).At a "diversity panel" held during orientation at Duke Divinity School, one of Brett’sfriends asked if students from the LGBTQIA+ community are safe to express themselves in theclassroom. A couple faculty members addressed it well, saying while they may not personallyagree with the "lifestyle," they would never grade or treat a student differently because of it, andsat down to hear the next question. But then the Dean came up to the podium to reiterate thatDuke is a United Methodist institution, stating: “At Duke, we think all people are of sacredworth, but we also uphold the Church's stance on homosexuality, which states thathomosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." No further questions were allowed, andBrett was outraged. He was almost outraged enough to leave Duke and find another school butchose to stay because he did not want to abandon seminary in his home faith because of oneofficial’s personal viewpoint on gender and sexuality (150-1).He could no longer willingly, repeatedly put himself in situations where he was told hisbeing is incompatible with the God he loves, and Whom he knows loves him. He could no longersit in such willfully ignorant conversations and pretend they were Holy in nature (152). Thoughhe continues to hear the divine call to be pastor in the UMC, he also hears and chooses to listento the divine call to self-care. He dreams of being a church leader who preaches good theology,does hospital visits for the sick and dying, goes to annual conferences, blesses the sacramentalelements, actively welcomes queer folks, baptizes lesbian women and gay men who have comeback to church, and has naming ceremonies for trans people (154).People suggested to Brett that he leave the UMC to become a pastor in a more acceptingsect of Christianity. However, he remains adamant and hopeful: “I'm not a Presbyterian or79member of the United Church of Christ. The United Methodist Church is my home. I will stay inthe Methodist pews. I will not be a pastor, but I will be a presence because I have hope for mychurch” (155). Despite ongoing difficulties with this path, he will keep defending it when peopleclaim it is unredeemable. He refuses to sit silently, and will not stop asking the tough questions,namely: “When will we acknowledge there are trans people in our congregations?” (156).Viewpoints on Masculinity & Manhood:As a kid and throughout adolescence, Brett felt very dysphoric and hateful toward hisassigned gender at birth and tried to block these feelings out. He describes his gender as neversomething that just was, but always something that should not be; he always felt like a boy butdid not have the language yet to articulate this as a child. When he would play make-believe withhis cousins and friends, it was always either playing house or cops and robbers; Some of his playroles included the "badass older brother," the "weightlifter who juggled multiple girlfriends,"and the "really smart college student who wanted to be a professor" (27-30). No matter whatrole it was, his pretend name was always Brett. At the time, he did not want his parents to knowhis imagination would even be capable of thinking of himself as a boy, so he made his cousinsand friends promise not to talk about their make-believe play with his or their parents.Throughout the remainder of Brett’s childhood, he tried to suppress and block out anyfeelings of being male. Upon entering adolescence, and eventually high school, he started todevelop depression and an anxiety disorder and began abusing alcohol, along with having manyhookups with feminine-presenting girls to be perceived as a lesbian, not trans. He did not knowhow to talk about his feelings of depression and anxiety, let alone ask for any kind of help. It didnot seem to matter how much he drank or smoked, how many parties he went to, how many lieshe told people, or girls he hooked up with—he never felt happy (33-4). He struggled withextreme social anxiety which made it debilitating to make new friends without vodka as "sociallubrication." When he was inebriated, he convinced himself he was fine and became oblivious to80the further deterioration of his mental health (124-5). He distinctly remembers times in highschool when he would hear of other trans people dying by suicide and became even more scaredto share his struggles with mental health out of fear that people would know he was not sodifferent from those victims and that connection would make his friends and family view him asmentally unstable and, therefore, stop talking to him (137). Through all this pain and confusion,Brett remained active in his church, particularly with the youth council, helping theminister—his grandfather—lead worship, read the liturgy to the congregation, and read theologybooks to take part in theological conversations with pastors and friends in the church. One of thefew things he was sure of from a young age was how much he wanted to be a minister, but heknew, even before coming out, he would not be eligible for ordination (144). His life plan, if hemade it through high school, was to be closer to God and share that joy with others.After graduating from high school, he decided to follow his spiritual life plan and wasaccepted into Duke Divinity School as Bri. First year was a time of self-exploration andrevelation; some painful and damaging, and some painful but liberating (7). One of thoseliberating experiences was meeting a professor who gave him the safe space to come out a queerwoman and to name all the fears he had about coming out to family and friends: “Would myfamily love me? Would my church accept me? Was God okay with this? Would I ever find a job?Would my friends stick with me? Would I ever be able to find someone to love me again?” (10)and “if they took me seriously, would it affirm my identity to myself? Or would it make my trueself so real to me that I wouldn’t know how to handle it?” (16). Shortly after this meeting with hisprofessor, Brett decided to start attending local Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in the eveningsafter classes. At one of those meetings, he took the plunge and came out as a trans man for thefirst time. The following passage encapsulates this profound turning point for Brett:‘My name is Bri and I’m an alcoholic…I think…part of why I used to drink was because Iwas afraid of who I was…if I was my true self, people wouldn’t love me...what I’ve learned81here is that there are people who will love me as myself…I’ve been living as Bri for myentire life, but it’s never felt right. I’ve never been good at being a girl and I’ve never beengood at being Bri...from here on out, I’m not going to do that anymore…I’m going to goby the name Brett and live as Brett. Today I’m grateful to be sober because I’m not quiteas afraid to confront myself anymore’… ‘Thanks, Brett. We’re glad you’re here.’ (17-8)In this moment, he opened up about more than simply wanting to stay sober and transition tomale; he was unpacking a whole slew of issues and assumptions with hegemonic masculinitythat both cis and trans men alike deal with on a daily basis: normalization of binge drinking to"be fun" to others, to hide pain, fear of vulnerability and opening up to real intimacy, andneeding to be extroverted to be confident and liked by their peers.But the biggest assumption this memory exemplifies is living up to everyone’sexpectations of your manhood except your own. Brett says he was playing the part of Bri foryears, despite it not feeling right and "not being good at being a girl," because that was what wasexpected of him as a "good daughter," a "good sister," a "good girlfriend," and a "good woman ofGod." After coming out as trans at that AA meeting, Brett became more aware of himself and hisplace in the world and started noticing gendered expectations everywhere he looked, includingwithin his own family. The more aware of all of this he became, the more willing he was totransgress those expectations and be more outspoken with the need for those transgressions. Atthis point, he was beyond frustrated about the fact that “[he] no longer knew how to be the childand grandchild [his] family thought [he] was” (51-2). He decided to come out to this mother andsister in a letter first because he felt closer to them. His sister was accepting right away, andwhen his mom read the letter, she did not understand and said she was not ready to call himBrett or use he/him pronouns yet, but that she still loved him no matter what. The men of thefamily were much slower to accept it. His father refused to talk about or acknowledge it until acouple of years later but did eventually come around. Other male relatives, mostly devout82Methodists, however, have yet to acknowledge the hurtful things they said and did to Brett andno apologies have been exchanged for all the fights (66).Moving past the lack of accountability and respect from his male relatives, Brett beganhormone replacement therapy once he saved up enough money to start it, as HRT is not coveredunder most insurance plans in the United States. His parents also declined any financial helpwith a medical process they said he would regret and did not see the harm in just dressing howhe wanted and waiting until he "knew for sure" to start anything "drastic." Considering Brett wasalready an adult and had been thinking this over for years with horrible gender dysphoria, thiswas just a projection of them not being ready to accept their child being transgender. I also mustagree with Brett when he says, regarding the concrete changes he needed to see, that“testosterone is the only thing that could make those changes a reality…[and] that necessity issomething…only trans people really understand” (75). He began wearing a binder which, hesays, was “the most uncomfortable thing I’ve ever put on my body, but…it was the first thing thatmade me feel any semblance of comfort existing in my own body” (75). Also important to note isBrett was able to save up enough money for HRT, and eventually top surgery, because of hissorority friends pre-coming out, fundraising for him at their parties. He admits he wasincredibly uncomfortable, at first, asking for help because he felt ashamed of failing to providefor himself and thought people would judge him as a man (77).Once he was on testosterone for several months, he started to become interested in hisbody in a non-hateful way for the first time. He liked seeing hair sprouted on his face and legs,his hairline changing, his arms getting thicker, because he was finally starting to feel like heknew and recognized his own body. He never ascribed to the trapped in the wrong body transdiscourse—as his body always felt like it belonged to him—he believes he was simply born into “abody that needed to make a transition to be fully itself” (75). After two months being ontestosterone, Brett had his top surgery—a double mastectomy—and woke up just in time to seethe fireworks go off outside his hospital room for the Fourth of July; prior to surgery, he thought83he would feel well enough to actually go to the fireworks, but he was far too sore to go anywherefor a while. Through the initial discomfort of surgical recovery, he felt an immense wave ofpersonal liberation; he refers to July 4, 2013, as “his own Independence Day” (84-5). The firstfew weeks after surgery were extremely hard for him, as he was not used to relying on others foreverything. He could not lift his arms up, lift any weight, push or pull doors, sleep laying down,empty his drains or change his bandages, and he acknowledges how privileged he was to havehis mother take care of him through the whole recovery process (85-6).For a while, Brett would look at his scars and think “real men didn’t have those scars ontheir chests” (87). It took a lot of support from his friends, and eventual partner, to realize thosescars did not make him less of a man. They are survival scars that show the path from where hehas been and how he got where he is today, and when his partner rests her hands on them andsays she loves him, he finally believes her (88). The process of getting to this level of acceptancewas a long one. There were conditions of being a man that he did not expect, such as the socialexpectations to change the way he walked and talked, to hold doors open for women, to alwayspay the whole bill on dates, and to not enjoy "girl shows" like Pretty Little Liars (98). He evenfound videos online of trans men giving advice on how to pass as a man, such as flat-lined voiceinflections, walk "manly," take up more space in public such as sitting with legs open andshoulder back, and to only date feminine cisgender women (99-100). He knew he should nothave to do all these things to be read as a "real man," but he was also understandably terrified ofthe very real, potentially lethal consequences of not doing them and getting clocked astransgender. But Brett is a queer trans man, and the whole point of becoming Brett was so hecould be himself; the man that he was expected to be pushed further away from his authenticself. For a while, Brett was proud to be a trans man but found it difficult to admit he was not amanly, heterosexual trans man who only chases after women (102).Brett admits he used to make a lot of gay jokes and thought it was okay because he wastransgender, until a friend confronted him and said that self-deprecating humor was just hiding84another part of himself and that an attraction to men did not make him any less of a man (103).It was only then that he realized that throughout his years of proudly transitioning, he had beenre-socialized in ways, he says, he is not proud of (105). The biggest take-away from this learningexperience for Brett was this: “If we don't naturally fit into the "ideal" man or woman, then it'snot really ideal for us” (107). This flips hegemonic masculinity on its head and reclaimsmanhood as whatever trans men—and cis-men—want it to be. This is where the UnitedMethodist Church could learn a thing or two about what it really means to be a "man of God,"and it starts with Christian men opening their hearts to the kind ofmanhood God has in storefor them. Just because the Bible says we are all sheep and Jesus is the Shepherd, does not meanevery sheep has to look and act the same way, or that the Shepherd punishes any sheep forwandering off down a different path. That wandering sheep—or Christian—is following wherethey feel naturally inclined to go. Jesus will check on them and make sure they know their wayback to the flock when danger arises, but He will never strike the one who lets themself exploremore of His beautiful world than just the same pasture they were born into.In our unfortunate reality, this self-exploration is beautiful, yet also a great privilege.Brett is lucky to have supportive friends and female family members standing in solidarity withhim who give him the space to experience this kind of exploration. He knows he has lovingpeople to fall back on when this exploration leads him toward painful experiences, somenecessary, others heart wrenching (108-9). He has the social, financial, and geographical/legalprivileges to use HRT, have surgeries, and make changes in legal documentation. And theseprivileges, whether we like to admit it or not, thicken our wool and sharpen our horns to staveoff predators, like ignorant wolves. There are many trans men who either do not wantHRT/surgeries or do not have access to them for a multitude of systemic reasons. But thosetrans men should not be seen as less of a man than those who do; and more of both secular andChristian society needs to recognize that (109). Like Brett says, we need to stop assuming menneed to have a penis and present in restricted ways to have their manhood and their humanity85respected. We need to advocate for all trans and cis men’s right to bodily autonomy and freedomto present however feels natural for them. Hegemonic masculinity and hegemonic theologyhurts cis men, too (110). When even a cis man faces potential threats of violence/harassment forcrying or simply telling their male friends they love them platonically, our society has a problem.When a cis man feels the need to lie about how many women they have slept with to maintainrespect with their peers, our society has a problem. When cis men feel like they cannot reach outfor professional mental health help without losing respect in their church or in their workplace,our entire society has a massive problem with hegemonic gender ideology that everyone has aresponsibility to work towards eradicating. This includes people of all sexes and genderidentities. This is not just a trans-man issue, or a cis-man issue; it is a cis-women’s issue, atrans-women’s issue, a non-binary person’s issue, and so on.It is also a Christian issue because if Christians want to claim we are meant to love andprotect each other from evil, we need to put our prayers where our mouths are and speak God’slove into action. God’s love is not anti-queer/trans; it is anti-queer/transphobia. We see thisillustrated in the dozens of Bible verses regarding love, including:● Let all that you do be done with love. (1 Corinthians 16:14)● And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he whoabides in love abides in God, and God in him. (1 John 4:16)● This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. (John 15:12)● Neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present northings to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able toseparate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-9)● If someone says, ‘I love God’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for if he does not love hisbrother, whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? (1 John 4:20)86We need to let allmen feel God’s love in their lives, whatever that looks and feels like for them.We need to give allmen the right to feel, period. When men are not allowed to feel anythingbesides anger, the number of men resorting to acts of violence, whether it be against family,partners, or complete strangers, is horrifying but not surprising (Huguet & Lewis-Laietmark,2015). It is horrifying the number of cis-het men suffering at the hands of the opioid crisis (Juddet. al., 2023). And it is terribly sad, but not surprising the steadily increasing number of cis-hetmen taking their own lives, and usually by the most gruesome methods (Leung et. al., 2019). Ittook a long time before Brett felt ready “to be in a relationship with people who truly wanted toknow [him]…It was a love [he] had never before let [him]self feel” (134). The reason Brett wasable to get to that place in his life was because he finally realized he did not need to know what itmeant to "be a man" in society or his church; he just needed to be himself (112), how only heknows in his personal relationship with God. In learning to laugh and breathe through all pastmistakes, failures, and heartbreaks (119), he finally experienced the queer liberation God had instore for him, as He does for all queer Christians. His transitions to get to this point—bothmedical and spiritual—were not immediate. It took time and repetitive gender affirmations fromfamily, friends, and supportive members of his Methodist congregation; it took his male friendstalking to him “like all of the guys” (160). Without affirmation, he would never have known itwas okay to be Brett, the queer, trans man God intended him to be.Trans Boomer: A Memoir of My Journey from Female to Male by Lee JayInterstices of Identity & Influential Family BackgroundLee Jay wrote his memoir because growing up, there was a void of trans stories with fewpublishing houses even considering the odd trans person who wanted to publicly share theirstory; he does not want that for the next generations. Upon publishing in 2015, Lee was 58 yearsold, and identifies as a white, American, multi-disabled, middle class, ex-Jehovah’s Witness,transgender man who, like Brett, struggles with depression and anxiety, from medical87exhaustion and losing friends in the AIDS epidemic. His native tongue is English. Lee neverexplicitly labels his sexuality but discusses intimate connections with straight cis women and gaycis men. Lee is single by the end of the memoir but remains open to whatever love comes intohis life. Lee admits he used alcohol for similar reasons to Brett, but never labels it as addiction,explaining that drinking at a young age was the norm for his generation.Lee grew up middle class, but his parents (from the Silent Generation, 1925-1945) grewup in poverty before having him and his sister, and his father was an alcoholic before they wereborn. Lee did not go to college right after high school because he barely passed grade 12, did notknow what he was good at, and was still dealing with undiagnosed illnesses. He grew up withand still manages concurrent physical and cognitive disabilities, spending much of his life in thehospital. Congenital defects include no eustachian tubes, poor eyesight, and an autoimmunedisorder resulting in frequent and severe opportunistic ear infections, strep throat, and sinusinfections. Once he thought his ailments were under control, he enrolled in college in January of1979. But after one semester, he was back in the hospital after collapsing at work, requiringsurgery to remove a severely inflamed double ureter on his right kidney. This was the cause ofhis chronic bladder infections, blood in his urine, and a seizure disorder. The surgery improvedhis overall health, but it meant taking a year off from work and school to regain feeling and fulluse of his torso through rest and physical therapy, and, subsequently, normal concentrationlevels after being pumped full of medications for years pre- and post-surgery.Upon recovery, he returned to college and declared a major in business to supporthimself to not return to physically demanding jobs. In 1983, he left his hometown to completehis final two years of college in a bigger city, hoping to find an accepting community on campusand anonymity off campus. He graduated with a business degree in 1985, in the first surge of theAIDS epidemic. With limited formal education, Lee found himself working a variety of hands-onjobs in the 70s to support himself without his birth family. He began full-time non-profit workin the mid-80s with his chosen family, the Centurions, a gay biker gang formed in 1978 by gay88military veterans who wanted to keep that military camaraderie without the homophobia, whoalso helped HIV+ and other marginalized men via financial support with the proceeds from dragshows, and emotional support in a system/country that relentlessly dehumanized them.Religious Background & Perceptions of Jehovah’s Witnesses:Lee was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, but eventually left the faith to become anon-denominational Christian. He views JWs as an isolationist doomsday cult, and wantsnothing to do with it, as it promotes dangerous, harmful theology that robbed him of so muchknowledge and years of personal development that he had to make up for via therapy. Jehovah’sWitnesses was founded in 1874 by Charles Taze Russell. Lee is the third generation of JW inboth parents’ lineage. JW, a minority sect of Christianity, has its members living vastly differentlives from their neighbors. Scriptural doctrine is passed down from the governingauthority—Watchtower Bible & Tract Society—and is to be followed without question (19).Answers to any questions about how to live a life approved by Jehovah are in thescriptures. Lee believes this method of learning produces black and white thinking, with zeroroom for other sources of information. The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society dictates that everymember’s social world must revolve around strictly family and the congregation. Parents areresponsible for rearing children into disciplined followers of Jehovah. A parent’s status in thecongregation depends on how well their children mature and whether they remain active in thereligion. If parents’ children leave the JW, the parents experience perpetual shame andembarrassment (20). This is because JWs are taught to see this as a failure, with their kids’actual blood on their hands come Armageddon. To lose a child to the secular or alternative faithworld—out of Jehovah’s flock—is to permanently scar the parents’ moral record with Jehovah.Hence, JW parents take great care to isolate their kids from the world. The number onemethod of choice is homeschooling. Parents who use public schools (like Lee’s parents)denigrate them, emphasizing every morning that only ‘The Society’ teaches the Truth. Lee’s89parents also told him he would not graduate before Armageddon arrived anyway and triedchanneling him into vocational education and jobs with minimal responsibility. This allows formandated, paid full-time service to proselytizing—converting as many people as possible toJehovah’s flock before Armageddon hits (21-2).Families in the JW community take turns hosting the weekly Bible study meetings intheir homes. Each meeting begins with a prayer, typically recited by the man of whichever houseis hosting the meeting, followed by reading of a complimentary textbook to the Bible. Discussionfollows around the book of Revelation. Finally, there is a round-robin reading, one paragraphper attendee of the text, followed by questions on the material read (23-4). Jehovah’s Witnessessupport the patriarchy, as husbands are to be obeyed by their wives, just as they obey Jehovah.Any civic involvement is forbidden, as it violates scriptural doctrine where Jesus says in theBible that His followers are not part of this world, therefore Jehovah’s people are not meant tobe part of the secular world (32). Lee notes that times were different when he was growing up.Homosexuality was still illegal and deemed a mental illness, with no mother wanting that sinfullife for her child (41-2). The congregation Lee grew up in was, however, racially/geographicallydiverse, including Hispanics, African Americans, and Canadians. His mother regularly studiedthe Bible with a Hispanic family of migrant workers who lived in extreme poverty (55).One childhood memory that reinforces Lee’s views on JWs was when he was leaving aJW convention in Yankee Stadium and saw a group of ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses forming a picketline to pass out pamphlets describing the religion as a dangerous cult. Lee was ordered to noteven look at them (68-9). As a teen, he was going through normal teenage physical development,but emotional/psychological development—making mistakes, learning life lessons, andgradually maturing over time—is denied by the Society. JW youths are expected to matureinstantly into young adults ready to serve Jehovah without any natural exploratory teendevelopment (80). Life as Lee knew it was going to end in five years anyway with the allegedArmageddon, so thinking ahead was not possible. He learned from an early age to keep his true90thoughts to himself to avoid punishment. Everything he knew about himself was wrong,perverted and forbidden at home, so why bother exploring when it would all soon be over? (86).Lee’s life went on autopilot, just putting one foot in front of the other. He was goingthrough life full of fear because of JW fear mongering (97). It was not until he graduated highschool and left Kansas—since the scheduled Armageddon never happened—that he was able totake refuge from the world in gay bars to escape the hatred of coworkers, family, and society atlarge, including extreme hostile backlash from religious groups (139). Lee began teaching in ajunior high where hatred excelled in a learning environment. In the early 80s at the onset of theAIDS epidemic, politicians were condoning gay bashing on live television. Whenever a gay mandied of AIDS, the funeral service was conducted as families wanted, their Christian agendaenforced. Men whose lovers had just died had their home taken by the family of the deceasedbecause they had no rights under marriage laws dictated by Catholicism or civil laws (175-6).Lee vividly remembers seeing dehumanizing slogans put on T-shirts such as, "Gay = GotAIDS Yet?" and "Kill a Queer for Christ" (183). Killing in the name of the Christian God has beenhappening for centuries, but it has always been the will of ignorant or deliberately malevolentpeople, not God. Millions of people were killed worldwide largely because of a sense of moralfailing attached to the disease. In North America, thousands died of AIDS because of thealt-Christian right’s influence on public opinion and access to information, particularly theCatholic Church. When governments failed to protect their citizens, LGBTQIA+ organizationslike ACT-UP, Queer Nation, and the Lesbian Avengers tirelessly researched, advocated,fundraised, and protested on behalf of those dying from a disease that both politicians andreligious leaders were blaming their "lifestyle" for contracting. Lee lost numerous friends toAIDS followed by an endless line of funerals with families that mercilessly ripped away allbelongings, money, and homes the surviving partner shared with the deceased because same-sexcouples had no marital or common-law rights (184). Religion was violently weaponized todegrade and dehumanize innocent people who just wanted to love who they loved, live a normal,91happy life, and die with dignity. The people who blasphemed the name of God for suchmonstrous acts are the ones who should be begging for God’s mercy. Claiming 100% certainty ofGod’s Will in any matter is boastful arrogance, which is prohibited in scripture.Viewpoints on Masculinity & Manhood:As young as five, Lee noticed how his sister and female friends seemed to feel at home intheir bodies, which heightened his feelings of discomfort in his, especially when it came toclothing. He grew up in the 60s with parents who wanted him to be a proper, feminine daughter:soft, dainty, barely present, take small steps, and grow up to be in the home raising childrenwhile supporting their future husband’s career. Lee remembers how appalled he was at thisbeing the only option provided to him and his sister (11). His father was an alcoholic and had amistress, which he felt he deserved in return for financially supporting the family. His father’sentire friend group was men who also drank heavily and cheated on their wives because maleprivilege within Jehovah’s Witnesses—and 60s hegemonic Christian masculine society—allowedit; it was simply the norm (16). His father would go on to lead this double life for over a decade.At the Jehovah’s Witnesses Kingdom Hall, only men are allowed to speak during theservice, and scriptural doctrine—hegemonic masculinity/hegemonic theology—justified thisrule. Men are the head of their families, with women and children in subservient positions (22).The customary dress code—in Kingdom services and home Bible studies—was strictly gendered:suits and ties for the men and boys, dresses or skirts for the women and girls. All service andmeeting prayers are read aloud by men, and group readings and discussions are also dictated bythe Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, all of whom are men (23-4). When Lee’s father wasleading a Bible study in his home, he would often need to discuss private topics with the maleelders present, which meant sending all the women and girls out of the room (24). As Lee wasraised as a girl, he always went with the women into the kitchen at this time. Thoughchildren—female or male—were not permitted to speak with company over unless spoken to, Lee92says he felt honored to get to listen to the women talk as he learned a lot of information which hestill carries with him today. As noted earlier, Jehovah’s Witnesses are against abortion, gay andtrans people, smoking, blood transfusion, and organ donation, as JWs believe all of theseequally contaminate Creation (26-7). But none of these things—except literal contamination ofthe lungs from smoking—contaminate Creation. This rule only holds power over JWs becausethe religion itself is contaminated by hegemonic norms influenced by centuries of Catholicism’shegemonic masculine conditioning guised as sacred theology.Jehovah’s Witnesses follow very traditional Western hegemonic gender expectations ofmen: make a salary that is enough to support a wife and kids (presuming the wife does not workoutside the home as is preferred under JW "unwritten rules"), never show weakness in front offamily, and to "man up" to handle the pressures such expectations put on a man. Women haveno rights, are to be submissive, stay home with the kids, assume their position in the domain ofmotherhood, and respect the unspoken code of silence for wives of the 60s (43-4). Of course,Lee was a gender non-conforming kid who regularly got corporally punished for failing toadhere to the rules of hegemonic femininity. Part of this punishment would include capitalizingon features of the "feminine domain." Lee would be forced into extra cooking, sewing, raising hisnaturally deep voice, wearing dainty dresses, taking up less space, and even practicing balancinga book on his head for better posture and poise (47-8). In 1967, Lee distinctly remembers gettinghis first period and how shocked and dysphoric he was to be "entering womanhood" thatquickly. He hated the horrible cramps, the nuisance of sanitary belts (before pads or tamponsexisted), and how much more self-conscious he felt about his body. But what he hated the mostwas the physiological signal of female fertility: he did not and still does not want kids (50).As an adult, Lee has no doubt that JW conventions attract male predators, as youngerJWs of all gender identities are known for their naïveté from being isolated from the general,non-JW population. In 1970, at Lee's first JW convention in NYC, he was riding the subway withhis mother when he felt a full erection against his butt from the stranger behind him. When he93tried to move away and stomp on the man’s foot to make it stop, his mother told him that hisbehavior was not ladylike and to stay put until they arrived at their stop. That man got off thetrain before them but was quickly replaced by another man running his hand over Lee’s barethigh, moving under his skirt (67-8). He felt so ashamed and embarrassed by this sexual assaultbecause his mother’s dismissive reaction reinforced a shame narrative around being a sexualassault victim, rather than shaming the person who chose to victimize someone.Come fifth grade, Lee became more curious about his sexuality and kissed the girl nextdoor, followed by asking her: “What if I told you, I’m not a girl but really a boy” (59).Unsurprisingly, the ten-year-old girl ran out of the house screaming and told her mother, whothen told Lee’s mother. He went home that night to a beating and more forced feminization forthe next two weeks. Because Lee grew up in an isolationist cult, he had not learned aboutconsent or personal boundaries yet; something that happens far too often with kids who grow upin ultra-conservative Christian households that stifle any proper sex education. Such householdsintentionally withhold such education because teaching consent and boundaries arms youngpeople with the tools to critically question their environment. It was not until Lee reached highschool that he began researching this information on his own, which he got caught doing andwas punished yet again for seeking information outside the cult. It was also not until high schoolthat he was walking through a San Francisco art exhibit after a JW convention day that he wasexposed to photos and paintings depicting gay love and sex. He was punished for notimmediately averting his eyes, but he fondly remembers this as the moment he finally knew hewas not alone or insane for his developing sexuality (77).Unfortunately, this moment was clouded over for the next couple of years when he wastrapped in his parents’ home. He knew to avoid further punishments, he had to assimilate andhide his true gender and sexuality, and at one point, this led him to the edge of a bridge oneblock from his school. He thought suicide would put him out of his misery—physicalpunishments, low self-esteem, poor health, anxiously waiting for Armageddon—but as he stared94down at the water below, he paused. What if he survived? He would be in even worse healththan he already was and would rely on his abusive family as his caretakers. He decided againstsuicide and started drinking and smoking with his school friends; it was easy to obtain alcoholwhen most parents, including his alcoholic father, always had a fully stocked liquor cabinet thathe was too drunk to keep track of missing bottles (87). But no amount of drinking was going tofix the underlying problems. Lee was struggling with controlling his anger, depression, anddeclining physical health. He was constantly exhausted—both physically and mentally—with acomplete void of information on LGBTQIA+ people like himself, just negative news stories aboutanother gay or trans person being killed or arrested (111-2). He knew if he was ever going to getout of his hometown and finally meet people who would embrace him, he would need to be ableto support himself with zero help. He wanted nothing to do with heterosexual marriage, nothingto do with fights over money, power, and sex like his parents had (65). Independence wasespecially crucial with no gay rights in the 70s; he could not have the marital/civil rights onlyheterosexual marriage offered at the time. Still, he tried ‟flirting” with being female for a bitlonger, even trying to date men, but that only ended in an attempted date rape, which ended anyattempts to bond with straight men for years (114).He began college in the 80s in a bigger city and met other gay people at gay clubs. Hefinally had hope that he could survive as his true self because he finally had support (112-3). Butthen the AIDS epidemic started killing off many of his friends. He stayed strong with theremaining friends he had from the New Jersey Centurions—a gay biker club that was started in78’ by gay veterans who wanted to rekindle the best parts of military camaraderie in a safe,embracing environment. The Centurions abided by a code of honor: respect, honesty, integrity,responsibility, and looking out for their fellow gay brothers (161-2). Prior to legal name change,and despite not being able to access legal gender change because of his disabilities and financialbarrier to surgery, Lee was the first trans man to be invited into this club. They worked tirelesslyto raise money for their brothers dying of AIDS, whom the State did not care about. This club95fostered a healthier brotherhood than any cis-heteronormative biker club, gang, or fraternity.The Centurions exemplified a type of queered masculinity that fostered respect and an opennessto love other men as friends and partners without their masculinity being called into question.Lee attended his first trans convention in the mid-80s, where he was finally able to meetother trans men and access LGBTQIA+ information that he had been deprived of. He noticedtrans women far outnumbered trans men once he started mingling; when he introduced himselfas a trans man, even other trans people did not believe he could have a female body under hissuit (157). Moving past this disbelief from his own community, he made deep connections withother trans men he never thought possible. He notes learning about diversity in the trans malecommunity: how each of them “took a different journey to discover we were in the wrongbody…a different journey to correct the wrong body…and a different journey yet again to decidewhen and how to educate the world about our lives” (147), only sharing a collective bond ofidentifying as trans men. My only critique is the lack of diversity in assuming all trans mennaturally ascribe to the born in the wrong body that needs fixing trans discourse. Some transmen do, but others do not, or do but only in medical settings because it is the only transnarrative that meets medical gatekeepers’ criteria for access to gender affirming care. But he wasworking with the knowledge he had at the time, coming from a very restricted background.By the beginning of the 90s, Lee was in his early 30s and decided to join the NationalLeather Association (NLA) which was founded in 87’ after the March on Washington for gayrights. The NLA offered him the opportunity to explore inner kinks and fetishes and expand hissexuality in a safe environment with like-minded pro-LGBTQIA+ people. He was yet again onthe fringe of society with queer/transphobic cis-heteronormative people labeling everyone in theNLA as dangerous and deviant. But those attitudes were exactly why the NLA does what it doesto this day: educate to slay the fear of the unknown (155). The NLA educates people on thedifference between kinky and abusive sex, how to negotiate what you want during sex, andcreating a safe word with your partner(s) to respect each other’s boundaries, and much more. It96was the NLA that coined the healthy BDSM creed Safe, Sane, & Consensual (156). Rather thanbeing dangerous, Lee asserts that the NLA promotes healthier sex than most of the public schoolsystem does for teens. The NLA helped Lee develop a more expansive understanding of healthymale sex and sexuality than most men are ever exposed to—both cis and trans, straight and gay.Lee discusses his gender and sexuality through strangers’ assumptions. If he is with anopenly gay male friend, people assume he is a gay cis man. If he is with a lesbian who "appearsstraight," people assume he is a straight man. How the world sees Lee varies depending onperceptions of who he is with and how much experience the person observed has with peopleoutside the cis male/female binary. It is common for Lee to be addressed as Sir and Miss on thesame day (198). This is something I find in my transition and how I am perceived when I amwith my partner who faces the same varied gender assumptions from strangers regularly.Finally, Lee acknowledges that, while he has no desire to return to womanhood, he feelshonored to have lived as both genders and believes everyone embodies some mixture ofmasculinity and femininity. While it is becoming more widely accepted in the WesternLGBTQIA+ community that there are more than two genders, Lee is coming from experienceswith gender from a different generation and notes the rise in younger generations choosing to“abandon constricting gender markers” (215). His journey of exploring masculinity began in aworld of gay men performing in drag before today’s notion of politically correctness. He livedthrough a time when the term cross-dresser was the PC term replacing words like tranny andhermaphrodite. When celebrities transitioned, society saw their struggles through medicaltransition, finding happiness when the medical process was "complete" (218-9). It is becomingmore accepted—though not entirely—to identify as trans without surgery or hormones. We arestarting to understand the biocentrism and ableism in expecting trans people to utilize medicalintervention to be "authentically" trans. Lee has no interest in assimilating into heteronormativesociety, urging trans folks to find a place in the world, comfort themselves, change what they canand survive as best they can (219). That is embracing the validity of trans masculinity.97ANALYSISThe following is the narrative analysis of Brett and Lee’s memoirs, broken down into thesix tenets of hegemonic theology (HT) and hegemonic gender ideology (HGI), and the resultingguilt, shame and/or violence they experienced because of it.Brett RayTenet 1-HT: Followers held to rigid, unyielding system of beliefsIn Brett’s narrative, two examples of being held to a rigid, unyielding system of beliefswithin the United Methodist Church include when he first came out as trans online and when hewas coming to terms with his ineligibility to be a United Methodist pastor. Brett first decided tocome out as a trans man on social media before telling his family, who he did not give access tohis online profile. While he received several messages of support and affirmation, he also read alot of private messages to his inbox steeped in non-affirming hegemonic theology: “It didn’t takelong for the private messages to flood in. Some of them asked if they had missed something,some asked detailed questions, others offered words of support, and still others told me I wasconfused and that this wasn’t what God wanted for my life” (47). As Brett said earlier in hisstory, as a little kid, he did not have language yet to understand he was trans, but he knew with100% certainty that he was not a girl. He always believed in God and was told that God lovedhim, long before he came out as trans. Brett wondered how these people in his private messagescould know what God does or does not want for his life when his gender identity neverinterfered with his faith in God before coming out to others.The unyielding belief some Christians have of claiming to know what God wants for allpeople without considering the diversity in God’s human creation, suggests Christian churcheswould benefit from incorporating intersectionality and queer theology into their sermons. IfChristianity preaches God to be an Almighty higher power who created everything on Earth, this98means God created millions of species, landscapes, and complex ecosystems, many of which, wehave yet to discover. Additionally, Christianity preaches of the endless mysteries of God,especially when discussing more complex phenomena or unexplainable human experiences. Ifholding both beliefs, it is not feasible that an individual Christian could be capable of foreseeingwhat God wants for every other person on this Earth, including trans Christians.The same conclusion can be argued against Brett’s home United Methodist Church. TheUMC’s official stance on LGBTQIA+ people is that being gay, lesbian, or trans is incompatiblewith Christian teaching, and “being a practicing gay or lesbian disqualifies you from being anordained pastor” (148). Cheng’s (2011) lesson on the second source of queer theology—queertradition—informs us that the beliefs an individual church’s leader teaches their congregationare that church leader’s personal, biased beliefs, and do not automatically correlate with God’srule over all of humanity. The fourth source of queer theology—queer experience—evinceshumans’ capacity to observe things through the five senses God gave us, which include theobservation—in whatever physical capacity any given Christian holds—of multiple churchleaders, within the same UMC denomination, preaches LGBTQIA+-affirming theology to theircongregations. Therefore, there is no merit to anti-LGBTQIA+ theology based on "tradition."Tenet 1-HGI: Resolute desire for power & control by weaponizing/using masculinity for gainIn Brett’s narrative, one example of a resolute desire for power and control or usingmasculinity for gain includes his make-believe play as a child. As a kid, long before Brett cameout or knew he was trans, he would use make-believe play with his friends to temporarily escapethe gender expectations of being socialized to be a girl. No matter what version of house or copsand robbers he and his friends were playing, Brett always played the "badass oldest brother."(27). What remained consistent, Brett says, was that his make-believe name was always Brett.While this is not an example of a constant desire for power and control over others or using99masculinity to gain something over others, it is an example of Brett using masculinity—even ifjust during make-believe—to feel some sense of temporary control of his own identity.bell hooks’ concept of feminist masculinity warns us of being quick to discard manhoodand masculinity simply because of the damage caused by hegemonic masculinity that Brettexperienced early on in his transition. In The Will to Change (2004b), hooks advocates forfeminist masculinity as a “constructive alternative to patriarchal masculinity,” and any attemptto eradicate the concept of masculinity just “furthers the notion that there is somethinginherently evil, bad, or unworthy about maleness” (hooks, 2004b). Hooks provides the followingframework for actualizing a feminist masculinity in everyday life:To offer men a different way of being, we must first replace the dominator model with apartnership model that sees interbeing and interdependency as the organic relationshipof all living beings…selfhood, whether one is female or male, is always at the core of one’sidentity. Patriarchal masculinity teaches males to be pathologically narcissistic, infantile,and psychologically dependent for self-definition on the privileges (however relative)that they receive from having been born male…male identity like its female counterpartwould be centered around the notion of an essential goodness that is inherentlyrelationally oriented. (hooks, 2004b, qtd. in Almassi, 2015).Replacing the dominator model with a partnership model of masculinity would allow Brett, andother trans men, to prioritize who they know themselves to be over others' perception of what aman "should be." This model would help him break free from the biocentric, internalizedtransphobia that says trans men can never be real men because they were not born intounearned male privilege. This model would show him the essential goodness of his genderidentity, no matter what identity it is, that is relationally oriented, whereby all man-to-manfriendships are based in interconnectedness over constant competition to prove one’s manhoodto people who should care about you for you, not how you measure up to them.100While wanting control over one’s self-expression is not an example of hegemonic genderideology, the male characters Brett chose to embody derive from internalized hegemonic genderideology, particularly hegemonic masculinity. Pretending to be a weightlifter juggling multiplegirlfriends shows internalization of a HGI that expects men to be physically strong, avoidemotional attachments, and to view women as trophies to be won as opposed to human beings.Believing that to play make-believe as a smart student who becomes a college professor or awriter, one must be male, shows internalization of a HGI that says women are intellectuallyinferior to men and do not have what it takes to become professors in higher education orsuccessful authors. Pretending to be a broke, male drug addict is a sad internalization of a HGIthat bears an unfortunate reality of the addict community, that on average, consists of more menthan women; interestingly enough, this character was foreshadowing for Brett’s eventualreal-life alcoholism. The make-believe characters also play into the structural and culturaldomains of power, in that, coming to embody any of these identities is largely determined byone’s position in the structural hierarchy of social institutions such as the job market, housing,education, and health, and the cultural ideology that competition in these social institutions isfair and results in a natural pattern of winners and losers.Tenet 2-HT: Producing cognitive dissonance, contradicting & conflicting dogmasIn Brett’s narrative, two examples of producing cognitive dissonance in a faith’s followersinclude the United Methodist Church’s hypocrisy regarding helping the less fortunate and givingout mixed signals in relation to the rules on God’s condemnation. From as far back as he canremember, Brett always wanted to be a pastor in the United Methodist Church because he hadbeen active in the church in multiple capacities his entire life and felt called to ministry.However, the ministry he wanted to provide was in stark contrast to the UMC’s currentmandates: “We asked those in need to come to the church for assistance rather than takingassistance to them…It was disconcerting to me how…queer people were being chased out of the101church rather than welcomed in…there is a major disconnect between the church and the peoplewe claim to want to serve” (143). Transfeminist theory evinces the discrepancy between feelingat home in God’s house in a queer Christian’s heart and feeling unhoused by other Christians’effortless, cis-het, often white, able-bodied, middle- to upper-class conditional acceptance intoone of God’s many public houses, i.e., churches.Brett is also revealing the UMC—and countless others’—lack of integrity to the poor thatthey claim to want to serve in Jesus’ name. Most churches do some community work where afew members of the congregation and/or the minister will go out to a nursing home or a hospitalto bring communion or some other sort of spiritual assistance to those they deem the "lessfortunate." However, this is done sparsely considering the resources they have available. Ratherthan follow in Jesus’ footsteps to help anyone in need, no matter how "uncomfortable" thecircumstances might make the helper feel, Brett is saddened to see the UMC helping with theleast amount of effort, discomfort, and financial resources necessary, and then proceeding tothank God for blessing them with the opportunity to do His good work.Brett believes in conducting a ministry that embodies both body and Black theology.Practical, as well as spiritual help, should be brought directly to those in the community whoneed it but never receive it because society at large puts all the blame on them for theirhomelessness, addiction, sex work, all the above, and more. Just as Jesus’ disciples did not turnaway in horror upon seeing Jesus’ wounds after the resurrection, Christians cannot turn away inhorror upon seeing the reality of our world today. Trans people are most often the ones helpingother trans people when most cisgender people turn a blind eye. And it is also most often thatsame trans person who steps in to help the cis person who would ignore them if they knew theperson helping them was trans. Black people are most often the ones helping other Black peoplewhen most white people would turn a blind eye. And it is most often that same Black person whosteps in to help the white person who would normally ignore a Black person’s needs but is nowin need themselves. Piepzna-Samarasinha asserts—as she does for BIPOC and LGBTQIA+102peoples— “the disabled and sick are discovering new ways to build power within themselves andeach other [and] at the same time, those powers remain at risk in this fragile political climate inwhich we find ourselves” (Piepzna-Samarasinha, 2018). If every church helped carry the weightof ignorance and hatred, instead of perpetuating it, and stood in solidarity with all thesemarginalized groups, the Church would finally exude a level of compassion that truly embodiesJesus’ dying wish for humanity: “‘Love one another; as I have loved you. By this all will knowthat you are My disciples if you have love for one another’” (John 13:34-35). For a "Christian" toview a marginalized person’s life as incompatible with Christian teaching denies thiscommandment and forfeits one’s identity as a disciple of Jesus.Tenet 2-HGI: Subordinate, degrade & devalue any challenge to cis-het masculine discourseIn Brett’s narrative, one example of subordinating, degrading, or devaluing anything thatchallenges the cis-heteronormative discourse is his difficulty accepting his own queermasculinity, even after coming to terms with being a trans man. In 2014, he began to becomeaware that he is a trans man with an attraction to not only cis women, but also cis men andgenderqueer people. He says: “It was surprising to me how hard of a pill that was to swallow…Iwas incredibly proud to be a trans man, but it was still unfortunately difficult for me to admit Iwasn't a heterosexual trans man. There's a strange expectation that to be a good man is to be aheterosexual, manly man who chases after women all of his life” (102). Though Brett neverbelittled other queer men for their sexuality, it took him a bit longer to come to terms with thefact that both his own gender and his own sexuality were not the HGI norm. This is at leastpartly because, if he were heterosexual, he could still maintain the heterosexual privilege andcultural legibility that comes with "successfully" embodying hegemonic masculinity.Brett admits he used to make a lot of gay jokes behind closed doors as well and thought itwas okay because he was part of the LGBTQIA+ community. But then, through a conversationwith his best friend aboutwhy he was making those jokes, he realized it was simply a self and103community-deprecating way of identifying another truth about himself: “I had someone toremind me that an attraction to men doesn't make me any less of a man” (103). Intersectionallyspeaking, Brett finally realized that he was abiding to a very essentialized, limiting category ofmanhood that excluded not only queer men like himself, but queer racialized men, queerdisabled men, queer immigrant men, queer older men, queer impoverished men, and queer menfrom any combination of these interstices of identity. Brett was openly challenging the cis-hetmasculine discourse that denied queer men entry to the church, while simultaneously denyingthe right to challenge this discourse for himself.Tenet 3-HT: All questioning discouraged/silencedIn Brett’s narrative, one example of all questioning being discouraged and silenced waspart of a diversity panel during orientation at Duke Divinity School. When a friend of Brett’sasked if LGBTQIA+ students were safe at Duke to openly express themselves, faculty membersgave affirming answers, but the Dean clarified that it was not a LGBTQIA+-affirming institution,and no further questions were allowed (150). While this upset Brett, he decided he was not goingto let one person dictate his ability to earn a degree in divinity. The dean’s decision to reiterateanti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric and deny further dialogue on behalf of the whole academic institutionwas based on abuse of "tradition" and scripture and was completely unacceptable. Tying thisincident to the disciplinary domain of power (Dill & Zambrana, 2009), the dean effectively toldthe entire incoming class that if something were to happen to an LGBTQIA+ student on campusthat risked their safety, the people responsible would not be held accountable.This form of silencing can be tied directly to rape culture on university campuses—andreligious academic institutions are not immune, no matter how much they preach to thecontrary. This is a social issue pervasive across Christian institutions around the world—gradeschools, post-secondary schools, and churches, alike—that rarely see justice carried out for itsvictims. Silencing survivors is a social issue that fails to be addressed by Christian leaders across104structural, cultural, disciplinary, and interpersonal domains of power, within and between theirinstitutions. And queer and trans Christians are not spared from the destruction disguised aswhat Brett so eloquently named, "holy conferencing," wherein the people negatively anddisproportionately affected are completely barred from public conversations that ensue aftersuch horrors, and strategies for damage control are created for the sole protection of theperpetrators of the hate-driven violence and the religious institutions that house their horrors(i.e., on-going sexual abuse of minors by clergy, denying the possibility of marital rape, publiclydenouncing the death penalty—even after thousands of unmarked graves of Indigenous childrenon former Residential school properties—condoning conversion therapy despite the 100%failure rate and resulting suicides, et cetera, et cetera).Tenet 3-HGI: Must prove manhood, esp. through callous sex attitudes, fetishizing dangerIn Brett’s narrative, two instances of feeling the need to prove one’s manhood are theunexpected conditions suddenly imposed on him by friends after coming out and coming toterms with the internalized anatomical conditions trans men impose on themselves. When herealized he was a man, he also learned that he had no idea what it meant to be a man. Uponbeginning his transition, people in his life started expecting big changes in the way he lived thatwould make him a "real man," but none of these likes, dislikes, interests, or behaviors areinherently masculine or feminine, and by extension, neither male nor female attributes. For awhile, he tried to make the suggested changes, but soon came to understand that the wholereason for transitioning was to be more authentically himself, and trying to fit into more genderideals that were not ideal for him was to go against that authenticity.Brett started giving himself permission to identify with a counter-hegemonic narrativearound masculinity that did not rely on mutually exclusive male and female attributes orinterests. This included anatomy as well: “Only when we stop assuming that all men should havepenises and present themselves in particular ways will we even begin to care for the lives of trans105men…Not all cisgender men align well with the male gender expectations, either” (110). If astraight, cis man were to suddenly lose his penis in an accident, becoming unable to havetraditional penetrative sex, would he no longer be allowed to live as a man? No. It is no differentfor a trans man; whether he decides to get phalloplasty or not, he is still a man. Like Dill andZambrana argue, there is nuance and complexity to all social categorizations, and the largercommunity of various kinds of men is no exception (2009). At one point in time, Black menwere not legally considered men with human rights like white men and were categorized asproperty. Look how far we have come (at least those of us not stuck in pre-abolition racism).Pope Francis publicly condemned racism as sin after the murder of George Floyd in 2020: “Wecannot tolerate or turn a blind eye to racism and exclusion in any form and yet claim to defendthe sacredness of every human life” (Vatican News, 2020). Racism is deemed sin in the CatholicChurch because it is an example of unjustifiable hatred for human life. And yet, that same zealfor valuing and respecting all human life is denied to LGBTQIA+ people.Tenet 4-HGI: Avoid femininity; discourage emotional expression except anger, lustIn Brett’s narrative, two distinct cases of avoiding femininity and discouraging emotionaldevelopment and expression beyond anger, confidence, and lust were the night he came out astrans to his AA group and the night he looked up YouTube videos of trans men teaching othertrans men how to pass. Early on in his degree, he came to accept his worsening alcoholism andbegan attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Before he had even come out on social media,he decided at one of the meetings to come out as a trans man in his testimony. That AA meetingwas more affirming and healing than any church confession. Brett finally admitted to himselfand others that his drinking was a long-winded attempt to suppress emotional development andavoid showing vulnerability. He never felt safe as Bri to show this side of himself, and this wasonly going to carry over into his life as Brett if he did not take a good hard look in the mirror andjust let himself feel—no alcohol numbing the pain—just complete surrender to all his emotions.106Culturally speaking, men are chastised for either not showing enough emotion orshowing too much at culturally wrong times—any time they are not alone. This example ofhegemonic gender ideology is heavily embedded into Western culture, and though things areshifting toward a hybrid masculinity of just enough vulnerability to balance out the bro-culture,men continue to be corrected socially for not living up to somebody’s gender expectations. Somuch so that not only are there "alpha male" videos on YouTube teaching cis men how to be"real men," but also videos of trans men teaching other trans men how to pass as cisgender.Brett shares how various videos, “told [him] to make sure [his] voice inflection was moreflat-lined…taught [him] how to walk manly…how to take up more space in a room or acrowd—because men generally take up more space than women do…to sit with [his] legs openedinstead of crossed, and to keep [his] shoulders back to make them appear broader” (99-100).For a while, Brett worked at checking all the boxes and began passing as a heterosexualcis man. The only problem was that he is a queer trans man, and all these adopted attributeswere taking him further away from his authentic self, which was worsening his mental healthdespite the trans euphoria he felt from passing. At this point, Brett would have benefited fromlearning about Cheng’s (2011) concept of God’s radical love: a love so strong it dissolves all thesocially constructed binaries people have imposed on themselves. While suppressing all sociallyconstructed signs of femininity to pass as a cis man are unfortunately necessary for trans safetyin a transphobic society, God’s radical love looks past social fabrications of gender and just lovesyou for you. God does not care what your voice sounds like, how you walk, talk, sit, or posture;He only cares about the kind of person you are and how you treat other people—the GoldenRule, understood by 99.9% of kindergarteners, is somehow lost on millions of Christian adults.Tenet 6-HGI: Ontological, essentialist, binary understanding of (wo)manhoodIn Brett’s narrative, one prime example of ontological, essentialist, binaryunderstandings of (wo)manhood is his changing relationship with his chest. After getting top107surgery to remove his breasts, Brett had an ambivalent relationship with his newly acquired flatchest. There were several moments when he would think, “I love this, I love the way this feels,but I can never let anyone see it” (86). He was happy to finally have the flat chest he had beenwaiting for but felt shame around the scars underneath from the surgical incisions: “There wasstill a part of me that thought real men didn’t have those scars on their chests” (87). Brett had,understandably, internalized an essentialist understanding of manhood—reduced to body partsand reproductive functioning. He finally felt at home in his own body but unhoused by thehegemonic gender ideology that equates sex to gender, gender to sex. Transfeminists like SaraAhmed want to break down the door to that tiny 4x4 room that sex and gender have been forcedto live in, with zero breathing room for far too long.In time, Brett came to embrace the scars on his chest, realizing they did not make himless of a man of God. A trans Christian’s surgery scars—if they choose to/can have thesurgery—show the voluntary sacrifices made to reach their full potential. The sacrificial painfrom this surgery connects trans Christians closer to Jesus, as Jesus’ body was heavily scarredfor who he said he was and his message. If Jesus’ scarred body is still sacred and loved, then whycan so many Christians still not see the sacredness and worthiness of love within their transsiblings in Christ? Those scars are lifelines of accessibility to a life full of genuine joy andself-love that everyone deserves but are too often denied because of others’ hateful decision tointercept and cut that connection. Anti-trans Christian organizations in the USA trying to cut offthat connection, including the Christian legal powerhouse, Alliance Defending Freedom, and theFamily Research Council, are behind multi-million-dollar campaigns to push for more anti-translegislation, guised as "parental rights." This has dire consequences for trans youth and adultstrying to access life-saving trans medical care, i.e., increased suicide rates for trans people andincrease in anti-trans hate crimes against those who no longer "pass" since being forced to stophormone therapy in the 19 States that have implemented medical transition bans (Pauly, 2023).108Lee JayTenet 1-HT: Followers held to rigid, unyielding system of beliefsIn Lee’s narrative, one example of Jehovah’s Witnesses being held to a rigid, unyieldingsystem of beliefs are ‘The Society’s’ strict control over families’ social life. Upon reflecting on therigidity of child rearing in a JW family unit, Lee remembers being told that all answers to life’squestions could be found in scripture, no critical thinking required. The governing authoritypushing this black-and-white line of thinking within any JW congregation is known as theWatchtower Bible and Tract Society, whom, according to Lee, demands:a very controlled social world that revolved around [the] family and congregation.Parents were responsible for rearing their children in the discipline of Jehovah, theirGod. The status that the parents enjoyed in the world of the congregation depended onhow well their children matured and whether they remained active within the religion. Ifchildren left the religion, the parents experienced shame and embarrassment. (20)While JW theology uses scripture to limit critical thinking in its followers, Christianity thatqueers its theology uses scripture as a starting point for different interpretations and insights toflourish through open theological discussions. Queer scripture is a source of queer theology thatis driven by follower’s unique lived experiences, letting personal experience lead theinterpretation rather than starting with a set interpretation and trying to mold one’s experiencesto fit that interpretation. In other words, JW’s use of scripture stems from a top-down approachto theology, while queer theology works from a bottom-up approach. JWs might be convinced toopen up to a more expansive theology if they had the chance to talk to more Christians outsidethe JWs and watchful eye of the Society. Because of the fear imposed onto them by the Society,many JWs may not even be aware of other interpretations of Christian scripture or theologies.That day walking out of his first JW conference with his family as a child, being met by109ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses passing out pamphlets to help more people leave the JWs, had asignificant impact on Lee and is at least partially to thank for his decision to leave as an adult.Regarding the second part of this passage, parents are put under tremendous pressure tokeep their children’s faith in Jehovah strong and unwavering. Any doubts in the JW faith areviewed as dissent and must be met with strict discipline—corporal punishment and shamingbeing the go-to methods of correction. In queer theology, questions are welcomed, not punished,as questions indicate curiosity and a desire to learn from others’ perspectives. And in relationaltheology, this dialogue between two or more differing points of view is how theology is created.Because God is intertwined with all our gendered and sexualized idiosyncrasies, followers ofGod can come from any background and any way of life, as God created all our differences withpurpose: to learn from and teach one another our own unique experience of creation. Every timewe learn from another person, we get to know another piece of God’s creation and, in turn,strengthen our faith through that knowledge transfer. Therefore, if a child grows up and leavesthe Jehovah’s Witnesses, it does not necessarily mean they have lost their relationship with God.They may have simply discovered the limitations JWs put on God and converted to a sect ofChristianity—or another religion entirely—that gives them the freedom to develop their faith,and there should be no shame or embarrassment in that. For those who fear being shunned bytheir family if they leave the Jehovah’s Witnesses, that very well might happen, but theimmeasurable joy and love that is possible from meeting new people and developing a chosenfamily who is supportive, might be just what their relatives need towitness to also leave theWitnesses, or at the very least, keep in contact with their child.Tenet 1-HGI: Resolute desire for power & control by weaponizing/using masculinity for gainIn Lee’s narrative, one example of a resolute desire for power and control by usingmasculinity for gain is in his breakdown of family gender roles. Heavily influenced by Jehovah’s110Witnesses doctrine, mixed with the generalized gender expectations of the "all-American family"of the 1960s, Lee was taught the following family dynamic:Men were expected to make a decent salary, enough to support their wife who stayed athome with their children…to handle the pressure, not showing weakness, staying stoic,and carrying on. My father would often remind my mother in a rage of howmuch…sacrifice he had to endure to provide the basic needs to our family. Women…hadno rights and were expected to be submissive…I lived under a code of silence…whathappened at home stayed at home. (43-4)Though Western, secular culture is slowly shifting, this dynamic is still common acrosscis-heteronormative, North American households—religious and not—and is riddled with moresocial issues than sexism. These standards perpetuate issues around classism, ableism, andracism, as well. Studies from the Pew Research Center suggest a steady decline in US surveyrespondents’ affiliation with Catholicism, with only 20% of adults self-identifying as Catholic,compared to 24% in 2009 (Pew Research Centre, 2019).Depending on where a male-identifying person falls in the masculinities hierarchy inrelation to income, physical and mental capabilities, and race as perceived by others, thebenchmark of adequately providing for his family can be within arms’ reach or dragged furtheraway. Depending on the social circumstances one finds themselves in from day to day, thisbenchmark has the potential to move either way—sometimes moving multiple times within thesame day—with some groups of men falling consistently behind and some consistently gettingahead due to socially constructed divisions between men that are out of their control. This is,most often, the reason marginalized groups of men are disproportionately accused of displaying"toxic masculinity," which I refer to as hegemonic gender ideology. There is a visceralinflexibility and limited understanding of gender among men (and women) that leads tosomething called normative violence: “the result of norms that determine not only who counts111as human, but also regulates what is legible and intelligible within a specific [gender]framework. Those vulnerable to not being recognized as legitimate [gendered] subjects risksocial death” (Mills, 2007 qtd. in Varela & Dhawan, 2011).Within the framework ofmanhood, men who embody a marginalized masculinity areoften forced into a hegemonic bargain to avoid this social death: “leveraging one aspect of…identity (race, class, sexuality, etc.) to elevate another aspect which is under threat” (Chen, 1999qtd. in Varela & Dhawan, 2011). An example of this within the LGBTQIA+ community is when awhite, rich, gay cis man leverages his white, class, and cis privilege to draw negative attentionaway from not being straight to maintain some level of status in the masculine hierarchy. Hemay do this by putting down other gay men who do not embody whiteness, a wealthy lifestyle, orwere not assigned-male-at-birth: ‘I might be gay, but I’m not like those gays; I’m a real man wholikes real men.’ This policing of differing expressions of "gayness” is a reiteration of cisgenderlesbian and gay men’s response to Christian movements opposing homosexuality, a form ofassimilation called homonormativity. Mathers et. al (2018) summarizes from Bernstein (2002),Bryant (2008), Sumerau et. al (2015), and Ward (2008) how, starting in the 1960s:Rather than maintaining a politics of opposition to Christian standards of morality,family, and relationships, homonormativity involves...politics of similarity wherein(primarily cisgender) lesbian and gay people—regardless of religion or feelings aboutreligion—adopt and conform to...standards of white, middle-class, monogamous,patriarchal, and domestic respectability...Homonormativity establishes some respectablelesbian and gay people at the expense of...ongoing marginalization of others.I would argue that homonormativity is strongly connected to internalized homophobia, and tomaintain some level of personal authenticity while trying to feel safer as a gay person, especiallyin devout anti-gay Christian communities, many cis-gay men (and cis-lesbians) resort tomarginalizing people from their own LGBTQIA+ community—including the ostracizing of trans112gay men—rather than trying to find solidarity. Thus, gay men are not immune to thecis-heteronormative and biocentric gender ideology pervasive in Western cultures, and simplybeing gay does not automatically make someone progressive or accepting of others’ livedrealities of being gay, or of different sexualities, gender identities or expressions.In the case of Lee’s father, he was struggling to bring in enough money to care for notjust a family, but a family with a child living with compounding chronic health conditions withminimal health insurance. Instead of addressing issues of class and health inequalities, Lee’sfather lashed out at his wife and children, pushing the financial blame on them, out of fear ofbeing emasculated and losing his authority in the home. Lee’s mother was financially dependenton his father, so she was forced to be the submissive housewife who did what her husband saidto keep a roof over her children’s heads. Lee saw this unhealthy dependence growing up butcould not say anything until he grew up, moved out of the house, and went to countless therapysessions to learn what healthy relationships and families could look like. But before then, thisfacet of hegemonic gender ideology caused complex traumas.Tenet 2-HT: Producing cognitive dissonance, contradicting & conflicting dogmasIn Lee’s narrative, two examples of producing cognitive dissonance in followers areJehovah’s Witnesses’ stance on social/health issues and politicians’ contradictory statements inthe 80s AIDS epidemic. In an introduction to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ general beliefs, Leeshares that the JW are anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, anti-smoking, anti-blood transfusionsand anti-organ donation (26). Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be pro-life, but then in the samebreath, are against lifesaving medical interventions like blood transfusion and organ donation,which alludes more to being pro-birth. This is a significant example of conflicting dogmas thatresult in an abundance of cognitive dissonance when a Jehovah’s Witness’ own life is on the line;though many JWs will deny lifesaving procedures—even on their deathbed—there have alsobeen many JWs who make an exception to the dogma when it is their own life or the life of a113loved one. This is not to shame any JW for making this exception, but rather, a critique of theJW faith for putting its followers in these inhumane circumstances. A queer theology wouldargue that no loving God would force their followers to choose between faith and life itself.Moreover, integral to a queer theology is the concept of radical love, “a love so extremethat it dissolves our existing boundaries, whether they are boundaries that separate us fromother people, that separate us from preconceived notions of sexuality and gender identity, orthat separate us from God” (Cheng, 2011). Such a love, I would argue, also dissolves theboundary between subjective, socially constructed conceptions of right and wrong that haveabsolutely zero backing from Christian scripture, as none of the aforementioned medicalinterventions existed back when these scriptures were initially written. Radical love asks forintegrity from its constituents, which means dissolving the black-and-white boundaries thatpeople have imposed on scriptural interpretation, therefore, dissolving the boundary thatseparates theological and secular study to allow for consideration of historical context.Lee also shares his memories of the AIDS epidemic and the contradictory statementsthrown around by Christian politicians that Jehovah’s Witnesses were expected to agree with.These included the following statements from Jerry Falwell Sr. and William F. Buckley:● Falwell: ‘AIDS is God’s judgment on a society that is not living by His rules’ (163).● Buckley: ‘There should be tattoos on all who have AIDS, to protect thevictimization of other homosexuals’ (163).These statements produce a similar cognitive dissonance to the JWs conflicting stance onmedical intervention. Falwell said AIDS was God’s punishment on a society not living by Hisrules, but that society is made up of more than just the gay men who were dying in droves fromthe disease, and it fails to understand that AIDS is not a "gay disease;" the minute thegovernment saw more and more cases of straight people contracting HIV, many of those samepoliticians—but not Falwell—stopped calling it God’s judgment. Calling HIV a gay disease was114also just for their own comfort, believing that they were safe from the disease because of theirheterosexuality. Buckley said publicly that anyone with AIDS should have a tattoo to protect thevictimization of other homosexuals, but his real motive was giving gay men a tattoo indicatingtheir status to increase their chances of becoming the victim of a hate crime because people onlyassociated AIDS with homosexuality. All these statements from politicians and hate propagandashirts came from people who dared to call themselves Christian. One of the most quoted Bibleverses is “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matthew 22:37—39), and yet, there is zeroevidence of any kind of love in these statements. People who identify as Christian but only lovetheir "neighbors" who fall neatly into their zone of prejudiced comfortability, are not abiding bytheir most basic duty as a Christian. Not every homophobic Christian will commit a hate crime,but fear breeds hate, which perpetuates the normalization of an anti-gay/queer culture thatdehumanizes gay/queer people, making it a lot easier for those whose fear of what they do notunderstand has turned to hatred, to resort to violence.Tenet 2-HGI: Subordinate, degrade & devalue any challenge to cis-het masculine discourseIn Lee’s narrative, one example of subordinating, degrading and devaluing any challengeto the cisheteronormative masculine discourse is his uncomfortable experience with his teachingcolleagues. One day, in the teacher’s lounge at the junior high Lee taught at, he felt forced tolisten silently as multiple teachers made abhorrent statements about gay men dying of AIDS:● Football coach: ‘This AIDS thing is great because it’s really going to reduce thenumber of incidents of homosexuality!’● Art teacher: ‘Our son is a doctor, and he has to treat those AIDS victims; whyshould he be put in danger, it's right in the Bible...what they’re doing is wrong!’● Staff: ‘Why, it’s full of fruits and nuts and even the weather is queer!’● Secretary: ‘He doesn’t respect women; his father is a fruit!’ (140).115Aside from how terrifying it must have been for Lee, a queer trans man to work with thesepeople, the audacity of his colleagues to vocalize these attitudes in a learning environment forchildren—some of whom will come to the realization that they are gay—is infuriating and heartwrenching. These teachers were fear mongered into subordinating, degrading, and devaluingmany of their current students’ lives because of the non-stop AIDS moral panic propaganda.Some might argue that Lee should have said something to stand up for himself andothers, but for things to really change, and to protect those directly affected, allies need to speakup in these kinds of situations. Trans people are not obligated to out themselves in potentiallydangerous situations to educate ignorance. If a trans person feels brave enough to stand up,more power to them, but the onus should not be put solely on them. I heard this said repeatedlyat the counter-protest to the Hands Off Our Kids march in September 2023 in response to a lackof cis-het people present on our side but claim to be allies behind closed doors: "If you aren'tgetting hit by the same stones, you aren't standing close enough."Tenet 3-HT: All questioning discouraged/silencedIn Lee’s narrative, two examples illustrating discouragement or silencing of allquestioning are the formal governance of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society and theexpectation of all Jehovah’s Witnesses teens to immediately become unquestioning adultfollowers. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are foremost a separatist and isolationist sect of Christianity.Lee shares how his family life was vastly different from their neighbors': “There are scripturaldoctrines passed down from the governing authority that must be followed without question.Any violation of these doctrines, based on scriptural content, results in the shunning of theviolator” (19). One of the primary distinguishing factors between a religion and a cult is whetherthe institution in question inflicts physical and/or psychological harm on its members; it is Lee’sposition that Jehovah’s Witnesses controlling followers in this manner meets the criteria of an116inherently dangerous cult, rather than just another sect of Christianity. This form of religiousgovernance over leadership eliminates the possibility for developing a relational theologybetween members, as members are expected to police each other’s public and private behavior,rather than build a genuine friendship. The constant fear of being shunned for making a mistakeunder the subjective JW doctrine is not conducive to wholeheartedly embracing the gospelmessage of God’s radical love. This fear is only conducive to producing guilt for completelynatural feelings and human curiosity, and the internalization of shame for getting caught.Lee also shares being policed by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society on basicadolescent emotional development. While Lee and his fellow teen peers were simplyexperiencing the average physical and social child development into their teen years, the Societymade it clear that “this average development was never allowed in Jehovah’s Witnesses’ youths.During this time, you were to mature into young adults ready to serve Jehovah without goingthrough any sort of teenage development” (80). Like Lee says, it is no wonder the Jehovah’sWitnesses attract and encourage sexual predation with its younger members’ naïveté andisolation from the general population. The youngest and most vulnerable members are nottaught about consent, boundaries, the difference between healthy vs abusive relationships, oreven basic human psychological/sexual development. If a JW teen even tries to ask anyquestions about any of these topics, they are immediately shut down and often punished fordaring to even think about such "blasphemy." To this, I must ask: If God is responsible for thecreation of all humans, why would They create something They deem an "abomination?" And ifGod is All-powerful and Almighty, why are They creating so many "mistakes?" These JWteens—or any Christian teens for that matter—would benefit from a theological and sexualeducation inclusive of queer experience. They would learn that God, Thyself, is a compassionateGod, who loves all of creation just the way they are because every(body)’s differences—includinggender and sexuality-were created with Divine intention.117Tenet 3-HGI: Must prove manhood, esp. through callous sexual attitudes, fetishizing dangerIn Lee’s narrative, two anecdotes that exemplify a constant need to prove one’smanhood—especially through callous sex attitudes and fetishization of danger—are being transin an American airport shortly after 9/11 and the strenuous legal process of transitioningwithout medical intervention. Lee was lied to from infancy to early adulthood about theinevitable Armageddon that would annihilate humanity for its sins and only save those whoproved their worthiness of salvation. Of course, multiple dates were predicted by the Society forGod's impending wrath, all of which came and went, only to be replaced by a new date. The onlyArmageddon Lee witnessed before leaving the Witnesses came on September 11th, 2001, oneyear and nine months after the last Armageddon date given by The Society.After the World Trade Centre twin towers fell on that fateful day, a new level of fear andparanoia swept across the nation that brought everything into question, including personalidentification at airport security. Shortly after 9/11, Lee was going through security at aninternational airport, where he showed his driver’s license as per routine. The security officerannounced to everyone in the general vicinity: ‘You’re going to have a hard time convincing meyou are the female that is listed on this driver’s license!’ (203). Lee did his best to remain calmand politely explained he was transgender, in mid-transition. Luckily, the officer let himthrough, but had it been a less lenient officer, Lee would have no one to vouch for hisnon-threatening identity. Though this is not an example of proving manhood through calloussex attitudes or fetishizing danger, it is, however, an example of a life-or-death situation inwhich trans men must prove their manhood to avoid callous sexual attitudes toward them fromother men and the potential physical danger to their lives, if proven unsuccessful. Trans men areoften and effectively forced to internalize the very biocentrism behind other men’s challenge tothe authenticity of their manhood. Passing can mean the difference between safety and thephysically dangerous consequences of failing to meet the criteria of hegemonic masculinity.118After this near-miss at the airport, in 2003, Lee decided to start the court process tosecure his legal name change. Unfortunately, because of the health legislation in early 2000sAmerica, he was not allowed to change his gender marker. He was only doing hormonereplacement therapy (HRT) with no surgeries, and a certified letter from a surgeon wasrequired, by law, to complete a legal gender change. Lee outlines the main reasonsgender-affirming surgeries were not an option for him: “Throughout [his] entire life, [he] hadbeen poked, prodded, and cut repeatedly due to [his] poor health…[and] insurance companieswere refusing to pay for any surgery involved in sexual reassignment” (208). Expecting all transfolks to have gender-affirming surgeries to be legitimately trans in the eyes of the law is bothableist and classist, one, because oftentimes, trans folks’ bodies like Lee’s with seriousdisabilities make surgery too risky to their health, and two, because in places where suchprocedures are not covered under public health insurance, gender-affirming surgeries are far tooexpensive and require too much time off of whatever work they are able to do to supportthemselves. Being disabled and/or being poor do not make someone any less authenticallytrans, and quite frankly, no one—not even other trans people—are in any position to policeauthenticity regarding how other people identify. A self-proclaimed transfeminism that does notinclude intersectional feminist theory into its praxis is not trans feminism; the very definition oftransfeminism is the application of feminist theory to deconstruct all socially constructedbinaries perpetuated by cis-heteronormative discourse, including the tenet of hegemonicmasculinity that all men need to prove their manhood whenever their masculinity is questioned.Tenet 4-HT: Secular/outside ideologies viewed as suspicious & a threatIn Lee’s narrative, two examples highlighting the suspicion of ideologies outside theJehovah’s Witnesses are JW parents isolating their children from the outside world andwitnessing an ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses protest outside a JW convention. Lee does an excellentjob in meticulously exposing the isolationist, separatist tactics used by the Society to prevent the119"infiltration" of external information that would expose the dangers of the religion to its currentfollowers. One such tactic is mandating specific parenting strategies for all JW parents andshaming parents who fail to follow it: “Children’s actual blood was on the parents’ hands if theyfailed. To lose a child to the world out of Jehovah’s flock was to scar their record as parents andChristian Witnesses took great care…to isolate children from the outside world…many chose tohomeschool their children. Parents who used public schools denigrated them by emphasizingthat only…The Society taught the truth” (21).This form of theological indoctrination does not achieve liberation from the "sins of theEarth," as The Society would have JW families believing. It achieves the various enslavedoutcomes liberation theologies strive to break free from. Labeling any route of potential escapefrom JW doctrine of enslavement as a threat to Jehovah’s Will does not build a strongercongregation. It intentionally singles out those most vulnerable in the congregation and usesthem as the theological scapegoat for public crucifixion to keep the rest of the flock in line. Ifanything, this JW tactic makes a mockery out of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Jesus knew thatupon his death, he would be resurrected out of God’s radical love for Their human son and allhumankind. There is no love in the crucifixion of JW’s most vulnerable members. Forcing themost marginalized to bear the cross of the most privileged meets the textbook definition ofblasphemy: an insult showing contempt, disrespect, and lack of reverence for God or an objectconsidered sacred or inviolable, in this case, God’s radical love for all Their creation.The Society takes labeling outside ideologies as a threat to another level when theyignore the experiences of their own former members having the courage to leave the Jehovah’sWitnesses and to attempt to help others do the same. At one of the JW conventions Leeattended as a child, he and his family walked by a line of protesters as they were leaving thestadium. These protesters were ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses passing out pamphlets to anyoneleaving the convention who would take one, that outlined all the dangers of the JW outlined inthis analysis. Naturally, this picket line caught Lee’s curiosity, but his parents immediately120ordered him to not make eye contact (69). Even as a child, Lee knew the faith he was beingraised in was doing more harm to him than good, and it is unfortunate that he was not able toheed the former members’ warnings until he moved out at the age of eighteen. This is a sadreality for many queer and trans people raised in conservative Christian households—they mustwait until they can legally escape their own families before they can escape the chains ofanti-LGBTQIA+ indoctrination. Once they are out, though, they can begin to see that allanti-LGBTQIA+ claims hammered into their head for years can all be debunked by a mixture ofqueer scripture, tradition, reason, and most poignantly, queer experience.Tenet 4-HGI: Avoid femininity; discourage emotional expression except anger, lustIn Lee’s narrative, two examples of avoiding femininity and discouraging emotionalexpression/development beyond anger, confidence, and lust are observations of his father’spsychological decline and his own struggles with anger and deteriorating health. Over the years,Lee’s father was always psychologically and physically abusive to him, his sister, and mother;and it only got worse with time. By the time Lee and his sister were in their late teens:[Their father] would become more and more absent from home until eventually movingout altogether. He would eventually go back to work, although when he cashed in hisretirement, he lost a huge amount of money because it was around the time that Nixonhad resigned, and the stock market was down. He was never the same after 1975 andbecame bitter, more enraged and would eventually leave the religion when hisalcoholism consumed more of his life and money. (105)Growing up with a father who lived a life this saturated in hegemonic gender ideology would behard on any child. But for a young trans man already struggling with gender identity andexpression, this model of masculinity would only serve to cause more cognitive dissonancebetween the female gender role he was trying so desperately to break free from, and the male121gender role he feared he could become: a man consumed by money, mistresses, the malaise ofaddiction, and ultimately, an early trip to the morgue. This is the very statistical outcometransfeminists are trying to save cis and trans men from fulfilling.Sadly, Lee did start down the path to becoming that very statistic. He admits to havingtrouble controlling his anger and depression, often drinking to cope with his unresolved familyand religious traumas. His physical health was failing him; he was frequently in and out of thehospital with various debilitating conditions that took far too many visits to the ER to finallydiagnose and effectively treat. He was understandably exhausted in every sense of the word tothe point that, when it came to considering his gender and sexuality, he laments on living “in avoid of any information with no internet, no social media, and very little news coverage ofanything that involved gay or transgender people except to report the negative” (111). And Leedid not need any more negativity. It took years of therapy and making new connections afterleaving his family and the JWs that he discovered the positivity that was possible from exploringvarious LGBTQIA+ communities. Lee was finally able to witness and experience—through boththe tragedies and the triumphs of the gay rights movement—all the possibilities for living out acounter-hegemonic queer, trans narrative.Tenet 5-HT: Pluralism of belief discouraged; other or no religion unacceptableIn Lee’s narrative, one anecdote revealing the discouragement of pluralism of belief andrefusal to accept other/no religions are his experiences of proselytizing with his parents by agenine. A Jehovah’s Witness’ religious duties start at the tender age of five, when they are expectedto start accompanying their parents in their field service work. This means going door to door ina designated neighborhood to share the Word of Jehovah in hopes of converting more people tothe faith. Lee began public speaking at age nine, which he very quickly excelled at. His parentstook advantage of his ability to sell and overcome rejection, and the Society “provided ascripture or a scripted response to every objection a householder could give” (26). Aside from122Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only other sect of Christianity that still practices faithconversion, door-to-door salesperson style. This practice is driven by their belief that the literalblood of non-believers is on their hands come Armageddon if they do not try to convert peopleweekly. Even if the person who comes to the door says they are already a Christian, that istypically not good enough. To be saved in the end times, they must be, specifically, a Jehovah’sWitness Christian, as all other denominations interpret scripture incorrectly, according to thissect. And if the person who comes to the door practices an entirely different faith or practices nofaith, they are doomed automatically to eternal Hellfire if they do not convert to JWs.Uncoincidentally, Western hegemonic gender ideology also discourages pluralism ofbelief. HGI says there is only one right way to be a man or a woman, and nothing in between.Specific to hegemonic masculinity, those highest on the hierarchy of legitimate masculinities arewhite, straight, cisgender, able-bodied, wealthy, Christian men. Any man who does not embodyall those characteristics must overcompensate in another area to at least avoid the lowest level ofthe Western hierarchy: non-white, queer, trans, disabled, poor, non-Christian/atheist men. Thisbrings up another point of classism within the Jehovah’s Witnesses. If JWs only go door-to-doorto convert people to save them, what about homeless people? Are they not worthy of Jehovah’sKingdom? Will the homeless be the first to die from Jehovah’s wrath as they had neither shelterfrom the elements nor eternal damnation?This also brings up a point of ableism within the Jehovah’s Witnesses. If it is a JWs’ dutyto proselytize, or else have the blood of non-believers on one’s hands, they fail to explain whatthis means for those with disabilities that would be a barrier to this duty, for example those whocannot speak to or hear the person they are trying to convert, those who paralyzed from the neckdown and could not enter homes with no accessible entrance, those who have suffered severehead trauma or were born with a severe cognitive impairment that hinders their level ofcomprehension and communication. Are these people not worthy of Jehovah’s mercy becausethey cannot efficiently convert people because of disabilities that are out of their control? It123seems to me that not only are Jehovah’s Witnesses unaccepting of pluralism of religious belief orgender ideologies, but also pluralism of socio-economic status or physical and cognitive ability.Tenet 5-HGI: Us vs. them narrative; sense of entitlement to power, wealth & sexIn Lee’s narrative, two examples of pushing an us vs them narrative and a sense ofentitlement to power, wealth, and/or sex were his father’s selfish life philosophy andconservatism in America during Reaganomics. Lee’s father was a man who felt a strong sense ofentitlement to multiple mistresses outside his marriage, no responsibility for the "feminineduties" of parenting such as helping the kids with their homework, talking to them when theywere upset, or comforting them when they were sick—and Lee was often seriously ill—or havingto discreetly spend his hard-earned money on Lee’s medical expenses because it was not hisfault his kid could not stay healthy. He was, quote, “supporting a wife and children,” and feltthese transgressions should be his “perks of the job” (16). Again, this did not give Lee aparticularly good example of a male figure he could aspire to through his transition. While hisfather felt at home in this damaging discourse of masculinity, Lee felt unhoused within thisdiscourse of masculinity and did not feel comfortable embodying those "norms of being a man."His father’s abhorrent behavior within his marriage to Lee’s mother was one of the main reasonshe chose to never get married. If their dynamic was what marriage looked like—and this was theonly kind of marriage he was exposed to in an isolationist cult—Lee wanted no part of it.On top of this already unhealthy example of marriage and family, Lee came of age in thelate 80s, in what he calls the throes of Reaganomics. There was no such thing as familybathrooms, and conservatism was the “only mood the country tolerated, with anyone on theoutside considered un-American” (149). All these hegemonic gender roles Lee was exposed towere also steeped in ultra-conservative politics in favor of xenophobia, white supremacy,ethnocentrism, Islamo/Hinduphobic, and a whole slew of other alt-right standpointsmasquerading as American family values. I think Lee would agree with me in saying: Hate is not124a family value or an "American value;" it is a closed-minded value, and closed-mindedness is anideology that anyone of any background can adopt—minorities and majorities, alike.Tenet 6-HT: Strict enforcement of literal interpretations of holy textsIn Lee’s narrative, the main source of strict enforcement of solely literal interpretationsof all holy texts is the rules of all Jehovah’s Witnesses study meetings. As stated before,Jehovah’s Witnesses are expected to take turns hosting group Bible studies in their home. Notonly must these meetings always start with prayer by a man, but everything that is read anddiscussed is also completely dictated by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, including theonly acceptable interpretation of the scriptures. There is then a “round-robin reading by malesand females of one paragraph in the textbook, followed by questions on the material just read”(23). This kind of meeting resembles more of a standardized test than an actual Bible study,which—if my grade schooling taught me anything—these kinds of tests are not testingcomprehension or critical thinking skills, but one’s ability to memorize and regurgitate. That isthe level of understanding of scripture for a Jehovah’s Witness: memorize and regurgitate. Thatis not theology, that is propaganda, much like the alt-right’s response to LGBTQIA+-inclusiveeducation: no informed arguments, just propaganda.Naturally then, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not keen on intersectional feminist theory, so itmakes sense that nuance, complexity, variation are not part of their theological vocabulary. Thisis not to say they are stupid, rather, they were indoctrinated from an incredibly early age to nothave this vocabulary. Concepts of nuance, complexity, and variation are threatening words toisolationist, separatist cult leaders who need to maintain control over their members to keep upwhatever lies they tell them. These are also threatening words to trans-exclusionary radicalfeminists and anyone who holds on tightly to ontology and essentialism in their genderperformance; and clearly, one of those people is Lee’s former college professor.125Tenet 6-HGI: Ontological, essentialist, binary understanding of (wo)manhoodIn Lee’s narrative, one audacious anecdote that reveals the ontological essentialism of(wo)manhood was his experience with being outed to a transphobic former college professor.This professor had somehow found out after Lee graduated that he is a trans man and was quiteupset that this was "kept from him," as if it were an act of deception and any of his business. Leeshares the moment this former educator showed where he lacked some education himself:He very uncomfortably confronted me, prefacing the conversation with his discovery andasking if I wanted to elaborate…I was not surprised so I simply stated the truth. He hadno idea…and then proceeded to ask me if I had ‘a tool’…Obviously this was something hefeared or he would not have asked the question. (216-7)This makes me wonder if this professor has ever learned about ontology or essentialism in hisown degrees, as it is not evident from this conversation. This professor’s discomfort with his"discovery" suggests this is a cis man who felt his masculinity was somehow threatened byanother kind of masculinity he was not familiar with. Rather than reflect and do some researchbefore initiating this conversation, he opened with anger and projected his insecurity of his ownmanhood onto Lee, who responded with security in his trans manhood. In my personalexperience, a lot of cis men are taken aback when a trans man is more secure in his masculinitythan they are in theirs. This attitude is indicative of biocentrism and, quite frankly, a lack ofmaturity and emotional development, which is understandable considering hegemonic genderideology does not value the "feminine" character development of emotional intelligence.126CHAPTER 5: SELF-EXPLORATION OF FAITH & (TRANS)MASCULINITYWhile Lee chose to leave the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who have still made zero strides tobecome queer/trans-affirming, Brett chose to stay in the United Methodist Church to keepadvocating for affirming changes. Though I chose to leave the Catholic Church at age seventeen,Brett’s decision to stay in the UMC sparked an interest in me to find out if there are any Catholicchurches/organizations that are currently queer/trans-affirming. While I am not comfortableever re-aligning myself with any Catholic church, Brett and Lee’s stories gave me a smallglimmer of hope for those folks who do want to keep their Catholic or otherwise conservativefaith without compromising their queer/trans identity.Trial & Tribulation, InMy TransitionI have found myself, just 1 year and 7 months into medical transition, already discoveringseveral new things about masculinity and manhood, some positive and some more negative andnuanced than I anticipated. In order to explain some of these personal experiences, I need todiscuss some concepts within men and masculinity studies—normative violence, the hegemonicbargain, social death, hybrid masculinity, cisgender privilege, masculine hierarchy, andbiocentrism—as well as one original concept I have begun developing that I believe will resonatewith many trans men and transmasculine folks: Bro-Culture Shock (Langille, 2024).I must admit, I find myself struggling with my own internalized biocentrism as a transman. This internalization is most viscerally felt every time I enter a men’s washroom, try to betaken seriously as a male site manager by entitled clientele at work, or simply conversing withcisgender men who do not know that I am a trans man. When I use the men’s washroom, thereis a self-imposed protocol that is driven by both my own internalized biocentrism and othermen’s: (1) Walk straight to the nearest available stall, careful to not make eye contact with anyother men, (2) wait to start using the washroom until it is either loud enough to drown out the127distinct "female urination sound" or all other men have left the washroom, (3) keep legs togetherand shirt covering most of my lap in case someone can see through the slit between the stalldoor and partition, (4) walk straight to sinks to wash hands, careful to keep looking in the mirrorto a minimum if others are around the sinks, and (5) leave promptly, being sure to keep a more"masculine gait." This may all sound ridiculous to cisgender folks, but it comes from all thehorror stories of trans men being harassed or assaulted in men’s washrooms because of a smalldetail that tipped off a transphobe to a trans man’s "invalid" presence in a men’s space.I started doing these things automatically out of years of being conditioned as awoman,to be extra cautious around men when no other "women" are around. And then it hit me: sincestarting to "pass" in my transition, have I made women take such precautions, simply because Inow pass—most of the time—as male? Because they, too, have been conditioned to be weary ofmen? It is a chilling realization that—at least with my outward appearance—I have become thevery thing I was conditioned to fear. This also gives me a new sense of compassion for how menare so disconnected from genuine emotional connection with others because of the restrictionshegemonic masculinity places on them and their peers. I know myself that the only time I wouldever lay a hand on anybody would be either in self-defense or defending someone else who isbeing assaulted, regardless of gender. But women to whom I am a stranger do not know that,and I do not blame them; they have every right to take such precautions with the rate ofsenseless violence committed against women every minute around the world. It breaks myheart, though, to know this and realize the only thing I can do to ease their discomfort is tosimply keep being myself, a person who will not hurt them as I, too, have been hurt.The violence I experienced as awoman is linked to the violence I have just begun toexperience as a trans man. As Mills (2007) says, normative violence is the result of norms thatdetermine not only who counts as human, but also regulates what is legible and intelligiblewithin a specific gender framework. When I was presenting as a cis-het woman, I had manyexperiences of emotional and bodily degradation of my femininity to boost/maintain a man’s128cis-het masculinity in the hierarchy of legitimate masculinities. Now that I am living as anopenly queer trans man, I am also having experiences of degradation, but for my lack oflegitimate masculinity as perceived by not only cis-het men, but also cis-het women, and evenmore surprisingly, by cis-queer women. When I was living as a cis-het woman, I had cis-het mentry to invalidate my humanity by dehumanizing my "feminine" body and emotions. Now, cis-hetmen are trying to invalidate my humanity by dehumanizing my "attempt to hide" my femininebody and emotions with an "appropriation" of masculinity/manhood.I used to teeter on the fence in discussions of male privilege because, when I only hadlived experience being perceived as a woman, I knew cis-het men would never take me seriouslybecause ‘what would a woman know about being a man?’ But now that I have tangibleexperience actively living as both a woman and a man, there is no doubt in my mind—nowaccounting for the power imbalance between cis and trans men—that not only is cis-maleprivilege real, but cis-passing privilege is also an unfortunate reality within the hierarchy ofmasculinities. When I pass as a cis man in public, I am treated with more respect from othermen, interrupted less often in conversations with men, and asked for my input more often frommale strangers than when I was living as a woman. Most of the time, for my own safety, I goalong with it and accept the hegemonic bargain required for cis passing. If I show any evidenceof "transness," it could mean social death of losing my legibility as a man with transphobiccomments/shunning, to actual death for threatening their fragile masculinity.The kind of cis man who kills a trans man, simply for being trans, could have a range ofmotivations for doing so, but all of those motivations—religious or secular—are rooted in ahegemonic gender ideology that demands: unwavering control, degradation of femininity,proving manhood by subordinating others, avoidance of emotional development, abiding by anus vs them narrative, and an essentialist, black-and-white understanding of manhood. Thoughthis lethal outcome will not happen in most interactions of being outed, the fact that it is apossibility and does happen, should make all men (and people of all gender identities) seriously129question their role in preventing this kind of violence. It is not enough to simply say: ‘Well, Iwould never do such a thing, so I am not part of the problem.’ You are part of the problem if youremain silent and complacent when witnessing an act of transphobia, no matter howinsignificant it may look or sound to you. Because, as many of my trans community memberswill attest, it is often the smallest, most seemingly insignificant detail that escalates into a visiblephysical attack. Transphobia needs to be shut down before it gets to that point.Bystanders stepping in is a crucial step toward denormalizing transphobia, whereasbeing transphobic is publicly condemned, and trans identities are normalized. We will haveachieved normalization of trans identities when coming out as trans is no longer requiredbecause the concept of coming out of the closet for trans people in the West implies we werehiding or lying about our gender identity. Trans identities will have been normalized when it isno longer labeled "brave" to tell someone you are trans as there is no more rational fear in doingso. It will also be normalized when trans people do not have to research a church beforeattending a service to see if trans people are genuinely accepted, tolerated, or if they will berejected. It will be normalized when trans folks hold more positions of leadership in the churchwithout their appointment being questioned or protested. It will be normalized when churchleaders address their congregation as simply God’s children, and not God’s sons and daughters,as the gender binary does not account for the diversity of human creation.Let me share a recent jarring experience connected to what I call bro-culture shock thatcould have turned for the worst and could have been stopped had one of the people presentcalled out the vulgar nonsense of their "bros." I was using the washroom at work before my shiftstarted—the men’s washroom because that is what I am, a man. A group of teen boys entered thewashroom and were being rowdy with each other, which normally I would just ignore because itis not surprising anymore. Suddenly, my stall door was being shaken and pounded on by acouple of those boys and I noticed them trying to look over the stall door and through the spacebetween the door and the lock. I immediately froze up because I was a trans man in a washroom130of mostly cis guys and my pants were down, exposing my birth-assigned sex. At first, I did notknow if they knew there was a trans man in the stall and this was about to be a transphobicassault, or they were just being assholes for "fun." Then I heard them asking, ‘Is that you inthere, X?’ The name they said was not even close to mine, so I realized they initially thought theywere just rough housing with one of their friends. However, when one of them looked throughthe space, they immediately turned around and whispered something and laughed with one oftheir friends. Soon after—though it felt like an hour—they left the bathroom still loudly shoutingrandom things, and I stayed in the stall until I could not hear their voices anymore. I put a maskon from my bag and quickly left the stall and washroom and headed to the office to start gettingready for my shift. This office is a safe space, as only I have the keys to get in, and there is alandline available if I ever forget my phone and need a lifeline.I have heard vile things said about cis/queer women and queer men while using men’swashrooms—worse than I ever imagined prior to medically transitioning—which is disgustingenough. But this was my first experience with fearing for my safety in a men’s washroom, andunfortunately, it will not be my last. Aside from the whirlwind of emotions, including the anger Ihad toward these boys, it has also fueled my protective instincts for other trans folks, especiallytrans youth. This experience shows just how much our school systems and family units arefailing our children, particularly the boys. It became clear that these boys have not beeneffectively taught anything about consent, boundaries, respect, or healthy interpersonalrelations in their male friend groups—hook’s feminist masculinity, if you will—and this will onlyget worse as they enter adulthood, with potential legal and/or lethal consequences.As disconcerting and violating it felt to experience this, it also points to a ‘rhetoricalcollision of sorts,’ where this level of "horsing around" and harassment might have felt differentto X as a friend and peer of these boys. In Times Square Red, Times Square Blue (1999) Delanyargues that, despite City Hall rhetoric, the "Disneyfication" i.e., gentrification of Times Squarewas never about public morality, safety or health, but rather, serving corporate/private131economic interests. Delaney describes this discourse as a rhetorical collision, whereby “the signthat a discursive collision has occurred is that the former meaning has been forgotten and thecareless reader, not alert to the details of the changed social context, reads the older rhetoricalfigure as if it were the newer” (119). Had I been socialized with this kind of taunting in malefriend groups, this situation may have landed differently for me. But this also begs the question:why is this kind of horsing around acceptable and to whom? To those assigned-male-at-birth(AMAB) and socialized as boys, this behavior is understood as "horse play," typically justifiedwith the same gendered adage: ‘Boys will be boys.’ But to those assigned-female-at-birth (AFAB)and socialized as girls, this behavior is understood as harassment.For AFAB trans men, this behavior is also a manifestation of bro-culture shock (Langille,2024). Trans experiences like this can be avoided with implementation of LGBTQIA+-inclusiveschool curriculum, the very curriculum many parents are being misguided to believe is an attackon "parental rights." If a parent actually reads through this curriculum, and still chooses toprotest it, they are not fighting for "parental rights;" they are anti-LGBTQIA+ and that is part ofthe problem that holds their children back from learning empathy for those different fromthemselves, whether that be differences of gender or sexuality, race or ethnicity, able-bodied ordisabled, poor or wealthy, Christian or Muslim, and so on. Learning empathy for those differentfrom us is critical for youth, particularly cis boys, to foster friendships based ininterconnectedness and interdependence with people of all social identities, not the constantcontention and antagonizing for cheap laughs prevalent in so many young male friend groups.LGBTQIA+-inclusive education fosters this kind of empathy and healthy interpersonalskills that increase a child’s emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence should be part of allgrade schools’ health curriculum. EI belongs in the classroom just as much as IQ; hate andignorance do not. Queer-phobic childrenwill become queer-phobic adults if changes are notmade. If parents are okay with that, but not this inclusive curriculum, their adult children, andevery other person those adult children cross paths with, will pay the price. Children need132protection from regression, not progression, and for these anti-LGBTQIA+ religious parents,God’s radical love—no matter which God(s) they believe in—has/have the capability ofdissolving the wall of fear, shame, and hegemonic guilt they have been tricked into believing is"protecting their children’s innocence." Childhood innocence is under threat from far more evilentities hidden in plain sight under the facade that cis-het equals safety.Bro-culture is rooted in hegemonic gender ideology that forces boys to constantly choosebetween the addictive but temporary dopamine hit they get from the approval of their friendgroups, and calling out the gendered behaviors and attitudes they know are hurting others theycare about, but cannot express this concern without experiencing a ‘social death’ that oftenincludes physical ramifications from those who claim to be their friends. Potentially the biggestbro-culture shock moment of my transition, thus far, is the sheer magnitude of pressure put onyoung, (assumedly) cis-het boys to fear feminization so deeply and viscerally, they would ratherjeopardize others’ safety than accept a feminist masculinity into their lives that might allow tothem to be genuinely happy. This is a tough choice that trans boys/men can help teach cisboys/men how to make: empathy over ego, happiness over safety.____________________________________________________________Happiness Over SafetyE. Levi Langille (2024)Wake up,saunter to the washroom,your own private washroom,brush your teeth,take your meds,take your weekly shot ofmanhood,dread,missing my shot at freedom._____________________________________________________133Put your binder on tighter than tight,a bullet proof vestready for a fight,keep yourwomanhood out of sight,Funny how a binder squeezes like an anaconda,and yet,I can finally…...breathe,with this constriction,I am free,from the flesh and blood prison puberty bestowed upon me.___________________________________________________After breakfast,grab your bag,grab your wallet and keys,grab your stealth expertise,It’s time to walk into another hopeful unknown,never fully at ease.___________________________________________________________Step onto the elevator,holding my breath,praying for safety,three guys enter,less than arm’s length,from possible death.134I know my mind is jumping to the worst conclusion but,with the current statistics,enclosed spaces can quickly become chambers…...of execution.____________________________________________________________The possibility is always there,But the world waits for no one,So, push it to the back of your mind,Press on.____________________________________________________________Though we refuse to live IN fear,we do liveWITH fear;it’s a fine line between living unapologetically trans,while remaining cautious of the real dangersto our…bodiesmindssoulsmindsand BODIES…We are so much more than our body... ...no matter how many they bury,More than just our genitals... ...no matter how many they rape,135More than just our reproductivity... ...no matter how many doctors deny us care.____________________________________________________________The threat of violence,in the face of non-complianceis a constant reminder;to defy norms,…is to court death.136CONCLUSIONSummary of Narrative Analysis: InsightsWith this narrative analysis of Brett Ray and Lee Jay’s memoirs, I hope it has becomeclear that, not only are trans men and Christianity not mutually exclusive, but the church canlearn and strengthen their collective relationship with God by coming to know and love God’strans children. Through queer theology, trans men such as Brett can teach the church the powerof God’s radical love, a love so strong, it deconstructs all limitations of our social fabrications. Bytaking off the mask of a socially constructed Imago Dei, Christians can see the true image ofGod—not in physical form—but rather, the holy virtues of compassion, love, faith, hope, charity,prudence, and justice. Trans men like Lee can teach the church the value of critical thinkingabout one’s faith and to see scripture as a starting point for multiple lived realities of God’schildren. We must not lose sight of each other and the cultural context in which we practice ourfaith. A tradition does not suit the collective if it harms any part of the flock.Through intersectional feminist theory, trans men like Brett can teach the church that,although fear, shame, and guilt are natural parts of life, they are not judges of who God does anddoes not love, and they are not the fence posts with which men are to judge themselves to othermen. Viewing God through intersectional eyes allows for a dissolving of arbitrary boundaries wehave created to categorize and divide God’s creation; for learning of different lived experiencesthan your own, lessens one’s ego and bias to become closer to the Divine. Trans men like Lee canteach the church of the ableism and classism inherent in imposing the Vatican’s unyielding ruleof complementarity and the life-giving union as requirements for Christian authenticity, andlabeling the actions of those who cannot abide as dissent.Through transfeminist theory, Brett and other trans men can teach the church of the truecompassion shown from one marginalized person to another. Just as Jesus continued to care forothers even as he was suffering, marginalized peoples, including trans people, continue to care137for other trans people when no cis people will come forward to help. There is an unspokenunderstanding and duty of trans adults to do what one can to lessen the suffering of the nextgeneration of trans youth. In the church, we understand that to do this, we must break down thewalls of hegemonic gender ideology that block entry into God's kingdom based on arbitraryhuman impositions of gender. Lee and other trans men can teach the church that disability doesnot taint the value one brings to a community or their purpose on this Earth; after all, our bodiesin this life bear no weight in the afterlife. Where the church sees impurity, God sees verity.Through body theology, men like Brett can remind the church that Jesus’ disciples didnot pity him for his physical disfigurement, but rather, understood the sacrifice as a gift ofcompassion and empathy for all humankind. The compassion and empathy trans men arecapable of embodying, even after profound physical and psychological scarring to the body andsoul, is a gift that should be celebrated in the church, not exiled. These scars are not to be hiddenaway, but rather, blessed in baptism to encompass our whole being—recognizing andacknowledging the full embodiment to our existence, both the beauty and the pain. Men like Leecan teach the church that exiling the most vulnerable does not strengthen a community. Astrong community embraces and uplifts those most vulnerable among them. And upliftingshould not be done as a charitable after-thought to lessen the guilt of those most privileged inthe community; No one should have been left behind in need of charity in the first place.Through Black theology, Brett can teach the church of Jesus’ solidarity with those themajority tries to silence and His divine judgment against any form of supremacy over anotherliving being. How much one values others’ humanity and honors their lived experience is abetter indicator of faith than how much one reads the Bible or attends Sunday services. Only"showing up" on Sunday mornings evinces faith in a colonial institution, not God. And Lee canteach the church the difference between building faith and indoctrination. If a church leaderprioritizes maintaining control over actively engaging with the nuance, complexity, and naturalhuman variation of their members, they are not a leader of faith, but a dictator of doctrine. All138Christian doctrine is a human construct createdwithout Jesus’ input, as everything was writtendown years after the resurrection. There is far more power in our personal relationship with theDivine over a myriad of verses lost in translation.LimitationsWith my positionality as a white, Canadian, able-bodied, trans Christian, I cannotgeneralize experiences of other white, able-bodied trans Christians with those of other races,nationalities, abilities, and other differing interstices of identity. Both Brett and Lee’s memoirsare from the perspective of a white, American/North American trans Christian man—intersticesclosest to my own. I did explicitly search for memoirs written by trans Christian men of otherracial backgrounds but only found two memoirs: one written by Lei Ming, an Asian Christiantrans man living in stealth as the rules around transition to obtain legal documentation in Chinaare extremely arduous, and one written by Rizi Timane, a Black Christian trans man fromNorthern Africa. Unfortunately, though I did read it in its entirety, I had to exclude Lei Ming’smemoir because it did not meet the memoir selection criteria of being from a Westernperspective and expanding outside this would be beyond both the scope of a master’s thesis andthe realm of trans narratives I feel I have a right to talk about from a culturally informedposition. I had to exclude Rizi Timane’s memoir for the same reason, but also because onlinesearches showed distribution had been discontinued outside of Africa until after I completed mythesis. Both memoirs are now available, and I highly recommend reading them: Life Beyond MyBody: A Transgender Journey to Manhood in China (2016) by Lei Ming, and Love Wins Out:My Journey as an African Trans Man (2021) by Dr. Rizi Timane.Though I do address race and nationality in analysis of both memoirs through myresearch of Black theology, there are nuances of being a racialized trans man, with which I doempathize through allyship, but will never completely understand, as it is not my personal livedexperience. I also cannot account for all the variations of scripture interpretation, tradition,139intra-congregational relations, and overall life experiences of trans men in the thousands ofother Christian denominations around the world, with ~200 in the US and ~100 in Canada. Ican only speak from experience as a Canadian ex-Catholic/current United Christian, along withinformation on the United Methodist Church from Brett and Jehovah’s Witnesses from Lee.This leads to the following logical question: why is it so much harder to find and accessmemoirs written by racialized trans men? Some might attribute this to trans people being aminority, and Christian trans people being a minority, and therefore, racialized Christian transmen are a minority within a minority, within a minority, limiting the number of relevantmemoirs. However, I would suggest, among other reasons, that there are additional barriers topublishing for racialized trans stories because the dominant narrative of trans life writing iswhite, as well as the fact that not all racialized trans peoplewant to publish their story either atall or in a book. There are far more stories of racialized trans people in online sources such asblogs, YouTube videos (including spoken word), and podcasts—which cut out thegatekeepers—of which I suggest should be delved into for further research on trans lifenarratives, particularly around other religions besides Christianity.Current ImplicationsThe "Parental Rights" rallies mentioned in the beginning of this work were, and continueto protest, the inclusion of LGBTQIA+-inclusive material being taught in Canadian schools—orany mention of anything LGBTQIA+-affirming in the classroom, i.e., ‘Don’t Say Gay’legislation—and demanding that parents be notified if a student requests to go by a differentname and/or pronouns in the classroom. After I attended and witnessed the visceral hatespewed because of blatant misinformation shared from an American neo-Nazigovernment-recognized cult, I see that this thesis has become so much bigger than myindividual struggles with discrimination and hate, simply for being who I am. These hate groups140claim they want to "protect the children," but only certain children that conform to their bubbleof cis-heteronormative-only propaganda.Directly from their website, Hands Off Our Kids states that they are a “grassrootsmovement dedicated to safeguarding parental rights and advocating for the removal of intrusiveelements of sexual orientation and gender ideology from the educational system”(handsoffourkids.ca, 2023). They have been insidiously disinformed by American Neo-Naziideology to believe we—the LGBTQIA+ community—want to do the following list of blatant lies:● Teach their kids how to have gay sex via sexually explicit material i.e., porn● Turn all their children gay and/or trans● Have gay and trans teachers groom their children for queer sexual exploitation● Promote anti-faith violence toward Christian, Muslim, and Sikh children/familiesHands Off Our Kids claims to embrace principles of “human dignity, freedom of thought, andreligious freedoms,” through “nurturing [kids’] growth in a safe environment and promotingcritical thinking through quality education.” They say they are bringing together "diversevoices" to show solidarity and raise awareness for the “well-being of children and reinforcing ajust, inclusive, and rights-respecting society.” They strive to hold current governmentsaccountable—particularly the Canadian federal and provincial governments—for theirresponsibilities towards the “most vulnerable members of our society.” They want their kids tolearn in a “healthy school system that is free from biases and indoctrination” and “refuse tostand by while the government and school system allow sexually explicit content and genderideology” to be made available in their children’s classrooms. Finally, they hold steadfast to thebiased opinion that parents, and parents alone, are responsible for their kid’s “moralupbringing,” not politicians, which is why they feel the necessity in marching to “speak up andhave their voices heard” through a process of “dialogue, positive change, and the preservation ofcore human values” (handsoffourkids.ca, 2023). As soon as pro-LGBTQIA+ Canadian groups141and communities got wind of this group, their misinformed beliefs, and their plan,counter-protests were orchestrated in every city that was having a hate rally, including mine.Those who are advocating for stronger "parental rights" believe these are "naturalrights," inherent and universal, with zero room for State involvement. American psychiatrist,Robert Jay Lifton describes this line of thinking as a thought-terminating cliché: “how mostfar-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive,definitive-sounding sentences, easily memorized, and easily expressed…becom[ing] the startand finish of any ideological analysis” (anti-hate.ca, 2023). Essentially, Dr. Lifton says thephrase ‘protect parental rights’ has become a thought-terminating cliché that shuts down anyfollow up questions such as ‘rights to do what?’ and denies any subjectivity or bodily autonomyof children and naturalizes the parent as an omnipotent figure who views their children asunconscious dolls rather than human beings capable of thought and action outside this figure’scontrol. The thought-terminating cliché ‘protect parental rights’ is being used as a morepalatable stand-in for ‘anti-trans rights’ or ‘anti-trans children’s rights.’While this mindset is driving anti-LGBTQIA+ activists who were already openlyproclaiming to be anti-LGBTQIA+, unfortunately, it is also being used to drive concerned,misinformed parents who may not actually be anti-LGBTQIA+ had they not been fed completefalsehoods about the LGBTQIA+-inclusive education. A substantial portion of those concerned,yet misinformed parents were specifically recruited because of their religious affiliation andtheir faith has been weaponized to push them further into anti-LGBTQIA+ beliefs. Theunderlying concern from both the anti-LGBTQIA+ activists who recruited them and themisinformed parents of faith is this fear of "losing masculinity" or "real men."The culture of fear of "losing masculinity" and "real men" permeates through all aspectsof Canadian life, and attempting to reviving hegemonic masculine traits is a direct response tothe alleged humiliation, confusion and emasculation of men caused by second wave feministswho advocated for gay liberation, women’s bodily autonomy from men, and female142empowerment in the workforce. Stephen Ducat (2004) argues that ring-wing movements use atwisted interpretation of the second-wave feminist movement to instill fear in men that they arebeing controlled by the "Mommy State" that pushes "feminist values" of weakness and softness.In Parental Rights Movement (PPR) groups like Hands Off Our Kids, these "moments ofsoftness" are parents fighting for complete control of their property—their child—disguised as"protecting the children," either not realizing or not caring that their demands for "parentalrights" may be suppressing their own child’s right to safety at school and/or at home. Thismovement is not about the children; if it were, I would not have seen several children holdingsigns saying, ‘I Belong to My Parents,’ and ‘My Parents Know Best.’Catholic Counter-Hegemonic Masculinity & What I Want (Christian) Parents To KnowGender and sexuality are not as a choice, but rather, a process of discovery through livedexperiences, a process not affirmed by traditional Catholic theology. And part of this process ofdiscovery is experienced in school. Many LGBTQIA+ people were denied this part of ourdiscovery process, including myself, which is why most of us did not come to even understandwe were always queer until well into adulthood. Had we been given some more information andsafe spaces to talk in grade school, we could have bypassed years of internalized hatred andunhealthy suppression which often leads LGBTQIA+ youth to alcohol, other drugs, cis-hethook-up culture, and suicidal ideation/attempts. These destructive behaviors—so long as theywere done discreetly—were framed as better than the alternative because they hide the truth. Itmakes ones think what the Catholic Church would rather have: suicidal, alcoholic, sexuallyexploited cis-het children scared of going to church or home, or happy, healthy, safe, queerchildren who do not fear their faith community or family?Those who participate in the One Million March Children say they fear their children arebeing sexually exploited by "LGBTQIA+ propaganda," but I was sexually exploited far more as a"cis straight girl" than as a queer trans man. I was more easily coerced into straight sex because143it meant further hiding of my queerness and transness. Cis-het promiscuity is an unfortunatelycommon tool of LGBTQIA+ suppression. Fighting against LGBTQIA+-inclusive education willforce many queer children into using this tool of suppression to get through their grade schoolyears in one piece, even if that one piece has been taped together so many times, one begins tothink they are made of 90% tape. It is extremely difficult to ‘just be a kid’ when every sparemoment is consumed by finding a better hiding spot than the last, sometimes from one’s ownflesh and blood. Kids do not choose to be LGBTQIA+, any more than they choose their parents.For kids to "just be kids," they need to stop being forced to choose between happiness and safetyin their own home, school, or community. And it should not take potentially losing one’s ownchild to a Pulse Nightclub-level tragedy to fully grasp how much weight is behind this plea.A Message to My Trans CommunityTo my trans community: If we are ever to eliminate the negative effects of hegemonicgender ideology that we call out our cisgender peers for, we, as trans people, must to stop takingon hegemonic gender expectations to attain some level of power, status and, ultimately safety,often at the expense of our own trans brothers and sisters who do not embody those traits. Iftrans folks are ever going to feel safe and validated, we need to find the courage to activelyembody gender expressions outside hegemonic cis-heteronormative ideals. We need cisgenderallies to support us, and each other, in the fight to deconstruct the hierarchy of legitimatemasculinities and femininities. We also need to remember our shared humanity underneath allthe political and social divides that are imposed on us, and those we have internalized asmarginalized people that we are too often co-conspirators in perpetuating.I also want my trans community to be aware of counter-hegemonic Christian theologiesthat attempt to break down traditional, binary Church teachings to support the idea ofgender-as-process, not gender as choice or sin. Upon reviewing NewWays Ministry’s core144commitments to the trans community, I believe counter-hegemonic Church teachings ongender, particularly masculinity, could promote:1.) Dialogue between cis and trans men that respects and affirms unity in diversity ofgender identity and expression, with no gendered expectations for legitimacy;2.) Anti-racist discourse spanning across all men and masculine-identifying people,where no one’s masculinity is questioned or demeaned because of perceived orself-identified race;3.) Intersectional understanding of manhood that recognizes men of varyinginterstices of identity intersecting with gender need different resources, andmutually empowering man-to-man relationships that lift each other up and holdeach other accountable;4.) Mutual respect between religious and non-religious men, cis and trans men, andother masculine-identified people with any combination of interstices of identity,that sees all men as valid, and worthy of respect, dignity, and love from friends,(chosen) family, partners, and God.I would like to finish with one final message to my trans, Christian, trans Christiancommunities, and anyone else reading this, using a metaphor from Austen Hartke that sums upwhat I would like all readers to take with them:What if we imagined this story in another way? What if the lost sheep didn’t wanderaway from the safety and goodness of the shepherd? What if it was just trying to escapethe cruelty of the flock? Sheep will occasionally pick out a flock member who doesn’t fitin—maybe because of an injury or a strange marking—and they’ll chase that individualaway…Jesus…leaves the 99 sheep behind to go in search of the one who needs145help…what’s at stake for Jesus in this situation isn’t just that one single lost sheep, andit’s not just the 99 back home. It’s the integrity of the [whole] flock. (Hartke, 2018)We need to stop scapegoating marginalized individuals to protect the comfort and status quo ofthe "community" i.e., the hegemonic majority. Singling out individuals will not eradicate thelarger systemic powers at play that impact every(body). We need to work within ourcommunities from a genuinely all-inclusive, intersectional lens of interdependence andinterrelatedness that not only protects trans, queer and other marginalized peoples, but alsosaves humanity from its own self-created catastrophes, fighting over human differences. Weneed to stop weaponizing these differences and start seeing how they are created with Divineintention, regardless of whether we believe that to be from God(s), Mother Nature, or the greatercosmos beyond any of our full comprehension.The most humbling lessons we can all learn, that can give us the potential to findcommon ground with anyone, are: to listen more than we talk, to think critically before wecriticize, to be careful with our assumptions of others, and no matter which "side" of a debate weare currently on, to always, always be teachable. I know that I do not, and never will knoweverything, and that is okay. It is part of what makes us all human. Sheep do not wander ingroups because they all think the same or cannot think for themselves; they wander together forthe emotional connection of community and for protection from wolves and other predators. Wedo not have to think the same way to show respect and kindness, and we should not have to beamong the chosen targets of a wolf pack to want to help those the wolves have chosen.146REFERENCESAhmed, S. (2016). An Affinity Of Hammers. Transgender Studies Quarterly, 3(1-2), 22-34.Ahmed, S. (2006). Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Duke UniversityPress.Allen, M. (2017). ‘Narrative Analysis’ in: The Sage Encyclopedia of Communication ResearchMethods. (Vols. 1-4). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. doi:10.4135/9781483381411Almassi, B. (2015). Feminist Reclamations Of Normative Masculinity: On Democratic Manhood,Feminist Masculinity & Allyship Practices. Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, 1(2).https://doi.org/10.5206/fpq/2015.2.2Althaus-Reid, M., Isherwood, L. eds. (2009). Trans/Formations: Controversies In ContextualTheology. London: SCM Press.Ames, J. (Ed.). (2005). Sexual Metamorphosis: Anthology Of Transsexual Memoirs. Vintage.Amundson, Q. (2024, February 6). Parental Rights Win With New Alberta Policy. CatholicRegister. Retrieved fromwww.catholicregister.org/item/36419-parental-rights-win-with-new-alberta-policyAssociated Press. (2023, October 2). Blessings For Same-Sex Unions Possible In Catholicism,Pope Francis Wrote To Conservative Cardinals. CBC News. Retrieved fromwww.cbc.ca/news/world/pope-same-sex-blessings-1.6984540BBC Newsnight. (2015, October 23). Germaine Greer: Transgender Women Are 'Not Women'[Video]. YouTube.Beardsley, C., O'Brien, M. (2017). This Is My Body: Hearing The Theology Of TransgenderChristians. Darton Longman & Todd, Ltd.Benson, K., Westerfield, E., Van Eeden-Moorefield, B. (2018). Transgender People's ReflectionsOn Identity, Faith & Christian Faith Communities In The U.S. Sexual & RelationshipTherapy, 33(4), 395-420.147Berlant, L., & Warner, M. (1998). Sex In Public. Critical Inquiry, 24(2), 547—566.https://doi.org/10.1086/448884Bhana, D. (2005). Violence & The Gendered Negotiation Of Masculinity Among Young BlackSchool Boys In South Africa. African Masculinities: Men in Africa from the LateNineteenth Century to the Present, 205-220.Biddulph, S. (1997). Raising Boys: Why Boys Are Different—And How To Help Them BecomeHappy &Well-Balanced Men. Sydney, NSW: Finch Publishing.Bogle, J. (2019, March 14). In Defense Of Masculinity. Catholic Herald. Retrieved fromhttps://catholicherald.co.uk/in-defence-of-masculinity/Bolin, A. (1988). In Search Of Eve: Transsexual Rites Of Passage. South Hadley, MA: Bergin &Garvey Publishers.Bradford, N., Syed, M. (2019). Transnormativity & Transgender Identity Development: A MasterNarrative Approach. Sex Roles, 81(5-6), 306-325.Bridges, T., Pascoe, C. (2014). Hybrid Masculinities: New Directions In The Sociology Of Men &Masculinities. Sociology Compass, 8(3), 246-258.Bridges, T., Kimmel, M. (2011). Engaging Men In The United States: Soft Essentialism & TheObstacles To Coherent Initiatives In Education & Family Policy.Men &MasculinitiesAround the World: Transforming Men’s Practices, 159-173.Burns, K. (2019). The Rise Of Anti-Trans “Radical” Feminists Explained. Vox. Retrieved fromwww.vox.com/identities/2019/9/5/20840101/terfs-radical-feminists-gender-criticalButler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble, Feminist Theory & Psychoanalytic Discourse.Feminism/Postmodernism, 327, 324-340.Butler, J. (1999), in Varela, C., Dhawan, N. (2011). Social Injustice: Critical Perspectives OnDiversity, Intersectionality & Anti-Discrimination.Munster: Lit-Verlag.Canadian Press Staff. (2023, March 13). Jesuits Of Canada Releases List Of 27 Members“Credibly” Accused Of Child Sex Abuse. CTV News.148Cartwright, M. (2018, October 12). Crusades.World History Encyclopedia, Mark Cartwright,Pub. Director. Retrieved from www.worldhistory.org/Crusades/Chambers, S., Carver, T. (2008). Judith Butler & Political Theory: Troubling Politics.Routledge.Cheng, P. (2011). Radical Love: An Introduction To Queer Theology. Seabury Books.Childers, J., & Hentzi, G. (Eds.). (1995). ‘Hegemony’ in The Columbia Dictionary of ModernLiterary & Cultural Criticism. Columbia University Press.Choi, K., & Ramaj, S. (2024). Trends In Solo Living Among Young Adults In Canada. PopulationSpace & Place, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2738Clark, Lee. The Pressures Of Passing, Reinforced By Precedent, 22 CUNY L. REV. F. 17 (2019)Cone, J. H. (2014). Strange Fruit: The Cross & The Lynching Tree. Journal of Theology forSouthern Africa, (148), 7.Connell, C. (2010). Doing, Undoing, Or Re-doing Gender? Learning From The WorkplaceExperiences Of Trans People. Gender & Society, 24(1), 31-55.Connell, R., Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking The Concept.Gender & Society, 19(6), 829-859.Crenshaw, K. (1990). Mapping The Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics & ViolenceAgainst Women Of Color. Stan. L. Rev., 43, 1241.Cromwell, J. (1999). Transmen & FTMs: Identities, Bodies, Genders & Sexualities. University ofIllinois Press.Crowl, A., Ahn, S., & Baker, J. (2008). A Meta-Analysis Of Developmental Outcomes ForChildren Of Same-Sex & Heterosexual Parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4(3),385–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/15504280802177615DeBernardo, F. (2019, June 10). NewWays Ministry Responds To New Vatican Document OnGender Identity. New Ways Ministry.Delany, S. (1999). Times Square Red, Times Square Blue. NYU Press.149Denny, D. (2006). Transgender Communities Of The United States In The Late TwentiethCentury. Pp. 171—191 in Transgender Rights, edited by P. Currah, R.M. Juang, S.P.Minter. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Dill, B., Zambrana, R. (2009). Critical Thinking About Inequality: An Emerging Lens. InFeminist Theory Reader: Local & Global Perspectives, eds. Carole R. McCann &Seung-Kyung Kim (Routledge 2017).Dollahite, D., Marks, L., Olsonm, M. (2002). Fathering, Faith & Family Therapy: GenerativeNarrative Therapy With Religious Fathers. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 13(3-4),259-289.Ducat, S. (2004). The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars & The Politics Of AnxiousMasculinity. Beacon Press.Duggan, L. (2012). The Twilight Of Equality?: Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics & The Attack OnDemocracy. Beacon Press.Eberly, D. (Ed.). (1999). The Faith Factor In Fatherhood: Renewing The Sacred Vocation OfFathering. Lexington Books.Eiesland, N. (1994). The Disabled God: Toward A Liberatory Theology Of Disability. AbingdonPress.Fairtlough, A. (2008). Growing Up With A Lesbian Or Gay Parent: Young People’s Perspectives.Health & Social Care in the Community, 16(5), 521–528.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2008.00774.xFerguson, H., Hogan, F. (2004). Strengthening Families Through Fathers.Waterford:Waterford Institute of Technology.Fetherolf, C. (2010). The Body For A Temple, A Temple For A Body: An Examination Of BodilyMetaphors In 1 Corinthians. Proceedings & Midwest Society of Biblical Literature, 30,88-106.Foster, D. (2005). Why Do Children Do So Well In Lesbian Households? Research On LesbianParenting. Canadian Woman Studies, 24(2/3), 51-.150Gross, D. (1990, April 16). The Gender Rap. The New Republic; Washington, 202(16), 11.Gunnarson, J. (2023, September 14). Join The Million Person March! Campaign Life Coalition.Retrieved fromwww.campaignlifecoalition.com/clc-blog/id/294/title/join-the-million-person-march-Harrington, C. (2022). Problematizing Men & Toxic Masculinity. In Neoliberal Sexual ViolencePolitics: Toxic Masculinity & #MeToo (pp. 43-73). Cham: Springer InternationalPublishing.Hartke, A. (2018). Transforming: The Bible & The Lives Of Transgender Christians.Westminster John Knox Press.Hines, S. (2009). A Pathway To Diversity?: Human Rights, Citizenship & The Politics OfTransgender. Contemporary Politics, 15(1), 87—102.https://doi.org/10.1080/13569770802674238Homolar, A., Löfflmann, G. (2022). Weaponizing Masculinity: Populism & Gendered Stories ofVictimhood. Journal for the Study of Radicalism, 16(2), 131-148.Hoy, A. (2024). “I Would Like To, But My World Wouldn’t End If I Didn’t:” Marital AspirationsAmong Sexual Minority Young Adults. Journal of Family Issues.https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X231226146Huguet, N., & Lewis-Laietmark, C. (2015). Rates Of Homicide-Followed-By-Suicide AmongWhite, African American & Hispanic Men. Public Health (London), 129(3), 280–282.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2014.11.008Imrie, S., Zadeh, S., Wylie, K., & Golombok, S. (2021). Children With Trans Parents:Parent-Child Relationship Quality & Psychological Well-Being. Parenting, Science &Practice, 21(3), 185–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2020.1792194Ingraham, C. (1994). The Heterosexual Imaginary: Feminist Sociology & Theories of Gender.Sociological Theory, 12(2), 203—219. https://doi.org/10.2307/201865Jackson, S. (2006). Interchanges: Gender, Sexuality & Heterosexuality: The Complexity &Limits Of Heteronormativity. Feminist theory, 7(1), 105-121.151Jacobsen, K., Devor, A., & Hodge, E. (2022). Who Counts As Trans? A Critical DiscourseAnalysis Of Trans Tumblr Posts. The Journal of Communication Inquiry, 46(1), 60–81.https://doi.org/10.1177/01968599211040835Jay, L. (2015). Trans Boomer: A Memoir Of My Journey From Female To Male. Biblio Pub.Johnson, A. (2016). Transnormativity: A New Concept & Its Validation Through DocumentaryFilm About Transgender Men. Sociological Inquiry, 86(4), 465-491.Johnson, V. (2019). “I’m Sorry NowWeWere So Very Severe:” 1930s Colonizing Care RelationsBetween White Anglican Women Staff & Inuvialuit, Inuinnait & Iñupiat People In An“Eskimo Residential School.” Feminist Studies, 45(2–3), 335–371.https://doi.org/10.1353/fem.2019.0030Jones, E. (2017). Thug Life: Sandeson Trial Reveals Dysfunctional University Crime Culture.Halifax Examiner. Retrieved fromwww.halifaxexaminer.ca/uncategorized/thug-life-sandeson-trial-reveal-dysfunctional-university-crime-culture/Jones, R. (2020). Later Life Sex & Rubin’s ‘Charmed Circle.’ Sexuality & Culture, 24(5),1480–1498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09708-6Judd, D., King, C., & Galke, C. (2023). The Opioid Epidemic: A Review Of The ContributingFactors, Negative Consequences & Best Practices. Curēus (Palo Alto, CA), 15(7),e41621–e41621. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.41621Konnelly, L. (2021). Both, and: Transmedicalism & Resistance In Non-Binary Narratives OfGender-Affirming Care. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 43(1).Leung, C., Kaplan, M., & Xuan, Z. (2019). The Association Between Firearm Control Policies &Firearm Suicide Among Men: A State-Level Age-Stratified Analysis.Health & SocialWork, 44(4), 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/hlz028Lorde, A. (2003). The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master’s House. FeministPostcolonial Theory: A Reader, 25, 27.152Lundberg, S., Pollak, R., & Stearns, J. (2016). Family Inequality: Diverging Patterns InMarriage, Cohabitation & Childbearing. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(2),79–102. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.30.2.79Martins, A., Ramalho, N., & Morin, E. (2010). A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Of TheRelationship Between Emotional Intelligence & Health. Personality & IndividualDifferences, 49(6), 554–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.029Masculine. (2023). In Dictionary.com. Retrieved from www.dictionary.com/browse/masculineMasculinity. (2023). In Dictionary Cambridge. Retrieved fromwww.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/masculinityMasculinity. (2023). InMerriam-Webster.com. Retrieved fromwww.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masculinityMathers, L., Sumerau, J., & Cragun, R. (2018). The Limits Of Homonormativity: ConstructionsOf Bisexual & Transgender People In The Post-Gay Era. Sociological Perspectives, 61(6),934–952. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121417753370McBee, T. P. (2012). Trans, But Not Like You Think. Salon.Meltzer, R. (2022, June 7).Memoir vs. Autobiography: What’s The Difference? Grammarly.Meyerowitz, J. (2002).How Sex Changed: A History Of Transsexuality In The United States.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Ming, L., & Frazey, L. (2016). Life Beyond My Body: A Transgender Journey To Manhood InChina. Transgress Press.Mock, J. (2012). Trans In The Media: Unlearning The ‘Trapped’ Narrative & Taking OwnershipOf Our Bodies. Janet Mock, 9.Moore, G. (2003). Question Of Truth: Christianity & Homosexuality. A&C Black.Muñoz-Martínez, A. (2016). Socio-Emotional Development Of Children Of Same-Sex Parents:Achievements & Future Lines Of Research. Diversitas: perspectivas en psicología, 12(2),295–300. https://doi.org/10.15332/s1794-9998.2016.0002.09153Murphy, M. (2020). The Transsexual Empire Revisited—Janice Raymond On Transgenderism,Yesterday & Today. Feminist Current.Namaste, V. (2000). Invisible Lives: The Erasure Of Transsexual & Transgendered People.University of Chicago Press.Nau, M., Dwyer, R., & Hodson, R. (2015). Can’t Afford A Baby? Debt & Young Americans.Research in Social Stratification & Mobility, 42, 114–122.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2015.05.003Neustaeter, B. (2020, July 22). Ontario Pastor Fired After Coming Out to Congregation asTransgender During Sermon. CTV News. Retrieved fromwww.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-pastor-fired-after-coming-out-to-congregation-as-transgender-during-sermon-1.5034055New King James Version Bible. (1982). Thomas Nelson.New Ways Ministry. (2022). Educating Catholics. History.NewWays Ministry. (2022). Core Commitments. Mission.Nonato, S. (2011, June 22). Fathers Are Guardians Of The Family & The Church. CatholicRegister. Retrieved fromwww.catholicregister.org/item/5717-fathers-are-guardians-of-the-family-and-churchPain, E. (2020). Queer Poly-Family Performativity: Family Practices & Adaptive StrategiesAmong LGBTQ+ Polyamorists. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 16(3), 277–292.https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2019.1596858Parreñas, R. (2001). Servants Of Globalization: Women, Migration & Domestic Work. StanfordUniversity Press.Parent, M., Gobble, T., Rochlen, A. (2019). Social Media Behavior, Toxic Masculinity &Depression. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 20(3), 277.154Pauly, M. (2023, March 8). Inside The Secret Working Group That Helped Push Anti-TransLaws Across The Country.Mother Jones. Retrieved fromwww.motherjones.com/politics/2023/03/anti-trans-transgender-health-care-ban-legislation-bill-minors-children-lgbtq/Pearcey, N. (2018). Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions About Life & Sexuality. BakerBooks.Pew Research Center. (2019, October). In U.S., Decline Of Christianity Continues At RapidPace: An Update On America's Changing Religious Landscape. Washington, D.C.Pew Research Center. (2011, February). Faith In Flux: Leaving Catholicism. Washington, D.C.Pittman, F. (1994).Man Enough: Fathers, Sons & The Search For Masculinity. Penguin.Piepzna-Samarasinha, L. (2018). Care Work: Dreaming Disability Justice. Arsenal Pulp Press.Prosser, J. (1998). Second Skins: The Body Narratives Of Transsexuality. New York, NY:Columbia University Press.Randles, J. (2013). Repackaging The “Package Deal” Promoting Marriage For Low-IncomeFamilies By Targeting Paternal Identity & Reframing Marital Masculinity. Gender &Society, 27(6), 864-888.Ratzinger, J. (1986). Letter To The Bishops Of The Catholic Church On The Pastoral Care OfHomosexual Persons. Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith; Vatican Archives.Ray, B. (2015).My Name Is Brett: Truths From A Trans Christian. Brett Ray.Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory Heterosexuality & Lesbian Existence. Signs: Journal of Women inCulture & Society, 5(4), 631—660. https://doi.org/10.1086/493756Rondot, S. (2016). “Bear Witness” & “Build Legacies:” Twentieth & Twenty-First-Century Trans*Autobiography. a/b: Auto/Biography Studies, 31(3), 527-551.Roughgarden, J. (2013). Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender & Sexuality In Nature &People (10th anniversary ed./with new preface by the author.). University of CaliforniaPress. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520957978155Scott-Dixon, K. (2006). Trans/forming Feminisms: Trans-Feminist Voices Speak Out.Canadian Scholars.Sculos, B. (2017). Who’s Afraid Of Toxic Masculinity. Class, Race & Corporate Power, 5(3), 1-5.Seidman, S. (2002). Beyond The Closet: The Transformation of Gay & Lesbian Life. PsychologyPress.Smith, P. (2024, March 8). Neo-Nazi Group Joins Anti-2SLGBTQ+ Protest Outside Library.Canadian Anti-Hate Network. Retrieved fromwww.antihate.ca/neo_nazi_white_lives_matter_anti_lgbtq_protest_librarySpade, D. (2003). Resisting Medicine, Re/modeling Gender. Berkeley Women's LJ, 18, 15.Spade, D. “Mutilating Gender.” In The Transgender Studies Reader, edited by Susan Stryker &Stephen Whittle, 315—332. New York: Routledge, 2006.Sprinkle, P. (2021). Embodied: Transgender Identities, The Church, & What The Bible Has ToSay. David C. Cook.Stryker, S. (2008). Transgender History. Seal Press.Thang, P. (2018, February 16).What Is A Memoir? Book Riot.Thomas, L., Fuchs, R., & Klaperski, S. (2018). High Trait Emotional Intelligence In Men:Beneficial For Perceived Stress Levels But Disadvantageous For The PhysiologicalResponse To Acute Stressors? Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 23(3),e12116-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1111/jabr.12116Toxic Theology. (2020). Encyclopedia of World Problems & Human Potential. Retrieved fromwww.encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/240394#:~:text=Nature%3A,a%20particular%20community%20of%20faith.Tunney, C. (2024, February 15). CSIS Warns That The 'Anti-Gender Movement' Poses A ThreatOf 'Extreme Violence.' CBC News. Retrieved fromwww.cbc.ca/news/politics/csis-lgbtq-warning-violence-1.7114801156Vatican News. (2020, June 3). Pope Francis: No Tolerance For Racism, But Without Violence.Retrieved fromwww.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2020-06/pope-francis-usa-george-floyd-protests-no-racism-violence.htmlVarela C, do Mar, M., & Dhawan, N. (2011). Social Injustice. Critical Perspectives On Diversity,Intersectionality & Anti-Discrimination. Münster: Lit-Verlag.Versaldi, G., Zani, A. (2019).Male & Female, He Created Them: Towards A Path Of DialogueOn The Question Of Gender Theory In Education. Catholic Congregation for Education(Ed.). Vatican City: Vatican City Press.Vipond, E. (2019). Becoming Culturally (Un)intelligible: Exploring The Terrain Of Trans LifeWriting. Auto/biography Studies, 34(1), 19—43.https://doi.org/10.1080/08989575.2019.1542813Warner, M. (Ed.). (1991). Fear Of A Queer Planet: Queer Politics & Social Theory (Vol. 6).University of Minnesota Press.157 |
|---|