*This document is currently being edited, in-text citations are being replaced with subscripts

Dear,

[REDACTED],

    I am writing to you to address the scientific evidence regarding transgender people, theological arguments for the acceptance and affirmation of transgender people and LGBTQ+ people broadly, [REDACTED] own stated goals, and how a recently adopted anti-transgender policy runs contrary to those things. This letter is meant to also address the lack of LGBTQ+ inclusive policies at [REDACTED] and how that affects the wellbeing of LGBTQ+ students. During the 2023-2024 school year, a policy, which can be found on pg. 36 of the 2023-2024 Student/Parent Handbook under the Unity section, was adopted. The policy goes as follows; “Consistent with [REDACTED] Statement of Faith and Philosophy of Christian Education, the altering of one’s biological sex or other forms of transgender expression or identity (attire, pronouns, use of facilities, etc.) are inconsistent with our religious conduct standards and Statement of Faith. We believe, as a matter of faith, [REDACTED], and gender, at conception, it is not the divinely intended prerogative of people to redefine God’s creation or alter God’s assigned gender. (Genesis 1:26; John. 1:3, Jeremiah. 1:4-5; Psalm. 139:13-16).” This policy explicitly discriminates against transgender students and causes immense harm to this marginalized group of students.To ensure equity, that LGBTQ+ students receive the care and support they need to thrive at [REDACTED], this discriminatory policy must be repealed. [REDACTED] must instead adopt policies that are inclusive and protect LGBTQ+ students  from discrimination. This letter will be broken down into four primary sections: Effects of Hostile School Environments and Supporting LGBTQ+ Students, Scientific Evidence for Transgender Rights, Theological Arguments for LGBTQ+ Rights and Inclusion, and My Personal Experiences at [REDACTED] and Thoughts.

Effects of Hostile School Environments and Supporting LGBTQ+ Students:

    According to GLSEN’s 2021 National School Climate Survey, a significant number of LGBTQ+ students nationwide experience hostile environments at school. Many often hear anti-LGBTQ+ remarks and slurs, and experience discrimination and victimization at school. This results in many LGBTQ+ students feeling unsafe at school and avoiding school activities, sometimes avoiding school entirely. 81.8% of LGBTQ+ students reported feeling unsafe at school, 78.8% reported avoiding school functions or extracurricular activities, 32.2% missed at least one day of school in the past month  (at the time of the survey) due to feeling unsafe at school, and 11.3% missed four or more days of school due to feeling unsafe at school. 4 in 10 LGBTQ+ students avoided school bathrooms, locker rooms, and physical education classes because they felt unsafe or uncomfortable. Approximately 97% of LGBTQ+ students heard “gay” used in a negative way, 68% reported hearing that frequently. 89.9% heard slurs and other homophobic language, 44.2% heard that language frequently. 83.4% of LGBTQ+ students heard negative remarks and slurs about transgender people, 39.5% heard these remarks frequently. 58% of LGBTQ+ students heard homophobic remarks from teachers and staff, 72% heard negative remarks about gender expression. Only 10.9% reported the teachers and school staff intervened all or most of the time when these negative remarks and slurs were said. 76.1% of LGBTQ+ students received verbal harassment at school, 60.7% because of their sexual orientation, 57.4% because of gender expression, and 51.3% because of their gender identity. 31.2% were physically harassed, 22.4% because of their sexual orientation, 20.6% because of their gender expression, and 20.5% because of their gender identity. 12.5% were physically assaulted, 8.8% because of their sexual orientation, 8.2% based on gender expression, and 8.3% based on gender identity. 53.7% of LGBTQ+ students were sexually harassed. 61.5% did not report harassment or assault to school staff members because they did not feel like their report would be taken seriously. 58.9% of LGBTQ+ students reported LGBTQ+ discriminatory policies at their school.[S1]

    The effects of a hostile learning environment for LGBTQ+ students, and the lack of LGBTQ+ inclusive policies, have a significant negative effect on the mental health and academic success of LGBTQ+ students. LGBTQ+ students who received higher levels of discrimination and victimization than other students because of their sexual orientation, were approximately 60.7% missed school in the past month (at the time of the survey) , felt lower levels of belonging in their community, performed poorer academically, had a lower self-esteem, and had higher rates of depression according to GLSEN’s 2021 National School Climate Survey. Transgender students who experienced high levels of discrimination and victimization were three times as likely to miss school (60.3%), felt lower levels of belonging in their community, performed poorer academically, had worse self-esteem, and had high levels of depression.[S1]

    Regarding the best practices to support LGBTQ+ students at school, the science is clear. Adopting LGBTQ+ inclusive school policies greatly benefits the wellbeing of students and creates a safer and more positive learning environment for all students. Yet many schools do not have LGBTQ+ inclusive policies, and some, such as [REDACTED] Christian, have adopted LGBTQ+ discriminatory policies. A lack of LGBTQ+ inclusive policies, and having LGBTQ+ discriminatory policies in place, creates a hostile learning environment for LGBTQ+ students and causes significant harm to them. There are many ways to address these issues, and create a safer and more inclusive learning environment for LGBTQ+ students. Professional development on LGBTQ+ issues, LGBTQ+ specific anti-bullying policies, LGBTQ+ specific resources, and LGBTQ+ student-led clubs such as GSAs (Gay-Straight Alliances). LGBTQ+ specific professional development is associated with school staff and teachers being better equipped to address anti-LGBTQ+ remarks and bias, and improves their ability to provide the necessary support that LGBTQ+ students need.[S2] When LGBTQ+ specific anti-bullying policies are in place, students report teachers showing more support for LGBTQ+ students and intervening more when hearing anti-LGBTQ+ remarks and slurs. [S3] LGBTQ+ students also reported less homophobic or transphobic remarks, slurs, and behaviors.[S3] Having LGBTQ+ specific resources can also help connect LGBTQ+ students with crisis counselors specifically trained to handle mental health crises in LGBTQ+ people, as well as other helpful resources for LGBTQ+ health and safety. Gay-Straight Alliance clubs help provide LGBTQ+ students with community, and help them to form relationships with other students like them. Students in schools with GSAs have reported less smoking, drinking, truancy, suicide attempts, and casual sex. LGBTQ+ students at schools without GSAs reported feeling less safe, more isolated, as well as reporting more discrimination and harassment.[S4] On the contrary, LGBTQ+ students at schools with GSAs reported feeling less unsafe, less isolation, less discrimination, and less harassment.[S4] 

Scientific Evidence for Transgender Rights:

    To properly and thoroughly address the specific effects of the recently adopted anti-trans policy, I will break it down into four sections; the validity of trans identities (further split into 7 paragraphs to more thoroughly address this topic), social transition (attire and pronouns), use of bathrooms and other gendered facilities, sports, gender affirming healthcare, and detransition. Being able to socially transition, use bathrooms and gendered facilities that match their gender identity, play sports on teams or in divisions that best match their gender identity, and having proper access to gender affirming healthcare are crucial for transgender youth. These things are associated with improved mental wellbeing. Preventing transgender youth from being able to do or access these things can significantly worsen the mental wellbeing of transgender students. It also reinforces systematic discrimination and stigmatization against transgender youth.

    Transgender identities are valid. For those arguing against this, many base their arguments on basic biology, ignoring intermediate and advanced biology. People who use basic biology as a counter argument to the validity of trans identities often assert that there are only two, binary sexes. Sex is not binary, it is bimodal.[S5] While most people tend to fit perfectly into the categories male and female, there are numerous genetic and hormonal factors that can make it so that a person develops in a way that is not typically male or female. Some people may develop ambiguous genitalia, some intersex individuals may have “ovotestes” (some of which can produce both eggs and sperm), and some individuals may develop a more typical female anatomy but have XY chromosomes.[S5] Some individuals may even be “mosaics”, where they have some cells with a certain set of sex chromosomes, and some with a different set of sex chromosomes.[S5] Even the notion that there are only two sets of sex chromosomes is incorrect, as other chromosome pairs such as XXX, XXY, XYY, and more exist.[S5] Some individuals with XX chromosomes that carry a fragment of the Y chromosome containing the SRY gene and may develop a male anatomy.[S6] Many of these conditions are referred to as DSDs (Disorders of Sex Development), and some researchers estimate they could be as common as 1 in 100 individuals.[S6] The biology of sex is incredibly complex, and cannot be boiled down to a binary model of sex. If sex was truly binary, then these instances where those lines are blurred wouldn’t exist. They do exist though, so no matter how rare they may or may not be, their existence proves that sex is bimodal.

    The argument that there are only two sexes, male and female, when used to argue against the validity of trans identities also fails because gender and sex are not the same. Sex refers to a set of biological attributes such as chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and functionality, and reproductive/sexual anatomy.[S7] Gender as we currently understand it refers mainly to socially constructed roles, expression, behaviors, and the intrinsic understanding of one’s own identity.[S7] Most of our interactions with the concept of gender are based on our social constructs around  it, and our scientific understanding of it is still evolving, which is how we have come to understand that sex and gender are different. While gender as we understand it is largely based on social constructs, it doesn’t make it any less real, and there is also emerging evidence that at least some small extent of it is related to and influenced by biology. There is some emerging evidence that suggests ERβ (Estrogen Receptor Beta) may play a key role in gender differentiation.[S8] Specific allele and genotype combinations of the AR (Androgen Receptor), ERα (Estrogen Receptor Alpha), and ERβ have implications for the genetic basis of transgender identities.[S8] Another study, which looked at 273 FTM (Female to Male) individuals particularly and compared them to a control group of 371 cisgender (opposite of transgender) females, found that the median repeat length polymorphism ERβ differed significantly between FTM individuals and cisgender females.[S9] FTM individuals had significantly higher repeat numbers of ERβ than cisgender females, and the likelihood of someone being transgender was higher in people with the genotype homozygous for long alleles.[S9] Another study found a significant association between ERα, SRD5A2 (gene), STS alleles, as well as ERα and SULT2A1 (gene) genotypes, and gender dysphoria.[S10] Biology and gender identity, and the extent they interact with and affect one another, are incredibly complex. Research into how biology affects the development of a person’s gender identity is still limited. However current evidence heavily suggests that biology, particularly genetics and the sensitivity of certain hormone receptors, may play an important role in how an individual’s gender identity develops in relation to the social construct of gender, and whether or not that individual will be trans. It’s exceedingly clear that it isn't as simple as someone being male or female, and that then determining their gender identity.

    Furthermore, there is emerging evidence in the field of neurology that proves the validity of trans identities. Human brains, while there are some sex/gender differences, cannot be distinctly classified as male and female.[S11] Human brains are comprised of many unique “mosaics”, with some being more common in males, and others being more common in females, and some being common in both.[S11] It would only be possible to make a distinction between a “male” and “female” brain if sex/gender differences were highly dimorphic, with little to no overlap.[S11] While human brains cannot be classified as male or female, there are still some small differences that can be observed with an MRI. For transgender individuals, recent studies have shown that their brains are shifted away from their biological sex and towards their gender identity (Kurth et al., 2022), and they may have their own unique brain phenotype (Muller et al., 2021).  A study including a small group of pre-hrt (hormone replacement therapy) transgender women, cisgender men, and cisgender women, found that even though the transgender women had not yet received any hrt treatment, their brains still showed a shift away from their sex and towards their gender identity (Kurth et al., 2022). Another study involving pre-hrt transgender men, pre-hrt transgender women, cisgender men, and cisgender women, found that the brains of transgender people differed significantly from their cisgender peers with their (sub)cortical brain volumes, but not cortical thickness (Muller et al., 2021). They also observed patterns that depended on direction of gender identity, brain measure, and brain region examined (Muller et al., 2021). Our understanding of neurology and the transgender brain is still in its infancy, however there is a trend emerging that shows that the brains of transgender people are shifted towards their gender identity and they may have a unique brain phenotype. These studies examining specifically pre-hrt transgender people shows that these differences and shifts are observable even before any hormone treatment has begun, which further provides evidence for the validity of trans identities.

    Another common argument against the validity of trans identities is that being trans is some sort of social contagion. Arguments that being trans is a social contagion are based on this idea of ‘rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), as well as an alleged increase in assigned female at birth individuals coming out as trans. ROGD is a term used to describe a supposed ‘epidemic’ of young people coming out as trans seemingly out of the blue, and was coined in 2016 (Ashley,  2020). Proponents of ROGD point to a 2018 “study” done by Lisa Littman, in which the purpose was to, “explore these observations and describe the resulting presentation of gender dysphoria, which is inconsistent with existing research literature” (Littman, 2018). Littman theorized that social influences by an individual’s peers and friends could cause ROGD, saying, “ The onset of gender dysphoria seemed to occur in the context of belonging to a peer group where one, multiple, or even all of the friends have become gender dysphoric and transgender-identified during the same timeframe” (Littman 2018). She also pathologized gender dysphoria and the affirmation of trans people through online environments and social network peers, even describing it at “deviancy training” (Littman, 2018). She further described the affirmation of trans people as an unhealthy pattern of reinforcement, linking it with a behavior of “deceiving parents and doctors” (Littman, 2018). Her choice of language here, clearly reveals her prior bias against transgender people, which manifests itself in her methodologies. Littman explicitly recruited parents from anti-trans forums and websites (Kesslen, 2022). Littman highlighted the “social and peer contagion” premise of the study at the beginning of the consent form, which immediately biases the study and further motivates parents with anti-trans views to participate over parents with more neutral or pro-trans views (Restar, 2020). Providing the premise of the study before parental-respondents provide their answers, can bias their responses in favor of the premise (Restar, 2020). Littman provided definitions of “gender dysphoria”, “transgender”, and “coming out/announcing as transgender”, but failed to provide specific definitions for “ROGD” and “puberty”, and so parents may not have informed on how “ROGD” and “puberty” were conceptualized and defined in her paper (Restar, 2020). It is important to note that the definition of puberty has been contested both in the past and recently (Restar, 2020), which is why it was important for Littman to clarify what definition she was using for her paper. Littman had a very clear bias, and the way in which the study was conducted biased the responses as well.

    Littman also failed to survey the trans kids of the parental-respondents. Florence Ashley, in her critical commentary on ROGD, stated, “ The term reflects a deliberate attempt to weaponize scientific-sounding language to dismiss mounting empirical evidence of the benefits of transition”, and further reiterates this point by saying, “ ROGD theory is best understood as an attempt to circumvent existing research demonstrating the importance of gender affirmation, relying on scientific-sounding language to achieve respectability” (Ashley, 2020). Furthermore, ROGD is not supported by scientific evidence. A study published in The Journal of Pediatrics found no clinical evidence for ROGD among adolescents under 16 (Bauer et al., 2021). Another study which reviewed the 2015 US Transgender Survey (Littman attempt to use this survey to argue in favor of ROGD), found that out of 27,497 participants, 40.8% of transgender adults reported realizing their trans identity at some point after the age of 10, and that the median time between someone realizing they are trans and disclosing their identity to someone was 14 years (Turban et al., 2023). This not only defeats Litman’s argument, but also explains why it may seem to some parents that their kids were “suddenly” transgender. Kids are more perceptive than people often give them credit for, and it’s very likely that they knew their parents may not accept them and so hid the fact that they are trans. When someone tells you they are trans, they have typically known that about themselves for months or even years before they tell you. The American Psychological Association and a multitude of other psychology associations have called for the term ROGD to be eliminated, saying, “ There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science”, and, “…there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents” (CAAPS, 2021). ROGD is not scientifically backed, and therefore cannot be used as a legitimate argument against the validity of transgender identities.

    The myth that a majority of transgender children will desist and grow up to be cisgender is another common argument against the validity of transgender identities. This myth is derived from a very small body of research, mostly done in Toronto and the Netherlands (Newhook et al., 2018). Many people interpret these studies to say that ~80% of transgender youth will grow up to be cisgender instead (Newhook et al., 2018). The meaning of “desistance” when used in regards to trans people, is often unclear. Sometimes it refers to a trans person no longer identifying as trans, changing their mind about pursuing gender affirming surgeries (regardless of their gender identity), changing their mind about seeking any gender affirming care (regardless of gender identity), and some studies even counted people who stopped responding to their follow ups as desisters (Skinner et al., 2023). Some studies even use a definition for desistance that states that “desistors” and “detransitioners” may continue to express a transgender identity (Skinner et al., 2023), so they didn’t actually desist or detransition. Along with flawed and unclear definitions of “desistance”, studies on transgender desistance rates often suffer from the following flaws; many of the children involved never asserted a trans identity and were simply gender non-conforming (a result of using an outdated version of the DSM), youth who stopped participating and responding were assumed to have desisted and were counted in the final desistance rate, many may have asserted a trans identity later in their life, some participants identified as non-binary and in some studies were classified as having desisted (and some never even considered non-binary identities), no evidence that affirmative care “traps” people into a trans identity exists that holds up to scrutiny, and these studies failed to properly examine the harm of suppressing children’s abilities to explore their gender identity (Newhook et al., 2018). These major flaws cast significant doubts on the 80-90% desistance rate figures often presented by these studies, as many of the participants counted as desistors were likely never trans, asserted a trans identity later in life, were non-binary and still not counted as trans despite non-binary identities falling under the trans umbrella, and/or simple stopped participating in the study. Not only are these studies severely flawed, but “desistance” research is largely clinically irrelevant. “Desistance” research doesn’t properly track the evolution of desire for social transition amongst trans youth (Ashely, 2021). These studies also tend to underreport persistence no matter if it is based on desire for medical transition or asserted gender identity (Ashely, 2021). Also, even if the statistics presented in “desistance” studies were accurate, transitioning for youth who grow up to be cisgender is nowhere near as harmful as delaying social and medical transition for trans youth, they are not comparable (Ashley, 2021). Much of the distress experienced by youth who grow up to be cisgender is tied to gender nonconformity, regardless of if they changed their pronouns, name, or if their social gender categorization was changed (Ashely, 2021). Many of these youth also expressed gratitude for the chance to explore their gender identity (Ashely, 2021). Corrective (conversion therapy)  and Wait-And-See models for transgender care, which these studies are often used to encourage, are not only extremely harmful to trans youth, but to cis youth as well. These models pathologize being trans and promote a negative view of transition and gender exploration (Ashely, 2021). By promoting the idea that gender exploration is a negative thing, essentially that exploring part of who you are is bad, it creates shame and degrades attachment relationships (Ashley, 2021). “Desistance” research is not only extremely flawed, but it’s also clinically irrelevant and harmful. More recent studies have also found that the overwhelming majority of trans youth who’ve socially transitioned at very young ages persisted, and that if they did desist they did so typically before the age of 10 before any medical intervention would happen or even be necessary (Olson et al., 2022). Trans identities are proven valid, through biology, neurology, and the debunking of “studies” commonly used in anti-trans arguments.

    Before moving onto the next section, I feel the need to address John Money and the John/Joan Case involving David Reimer. Reimer underwent a botched circumcision procedure as an infant on April 27, 1966 (Gaetano, 2017). Reimer’s parents sought help from John Money, a sexologist and psychologist at John Hopkins Hospital in 1967 (Gaetano, 2017). Money encouraged sex reassignment for Reimer while he was still an infant, a procedure which was (and still is) commonly performed on intersex infants with ambiguous genitalia (Gaetano, 2017). Reimer also received hormonal and psychological treatments, with the intent to make him into a girl (Who was David Reimer (also, sadly, known as john/joan)?). Money pioneered the idea that gender was entirely social, and was malleable at a young age (Gaetano, 2017). Reimer was made to wear feminine clothing, and raised as a girl without the knowledge that he was born male (Simkus, 2023). David and Brian Reimer were also never informed that they were being used by Money in a controversial investigation, known as the John/Joan Case (Simkus, 2023). David and Brian were forced to do sexual things by Money, who claimed it was important for healthy childhood sexual exploration (Simkus, 2023). Reimer also said that Money would be angry with them if they refused (Simkus, 2023). Money claimed that Reimer moved easily into his identity as a girl, however Reimer showed opposition to identifying as a girl from the very beginning (Walker, 2022). At the age of 14, David learned the truth about himself, and began to live life as a boy (Walker, 2022). What Money did to Reimer is often used to make anti-trans arguments against gender affirming healthcare and the validity of trans identities. Those arguments relying on the horrific and completely unethical thing Money did though, fail because of one basic premise. Money forced Reimer into a trans identity despite Reimer’s opposition to it, but trans kids are not forced into their trans identities. Forcing someone into a gender identity is against the very core of what the trans community advocates for. Furthermore, Reimer showed clear signs of gender dysphoria when he was forced to live as a girl. If anything, Reimer’s case shows that someone’s gender identity cannot be changed whether they are trans or not.

    Socially transitioning is an important step in the lives of transgender youth, and can improve their overall wellbeing and assist them in discovering more about themselves. Social transitioning is often done well before any sort of medical intervention is taken, and may involve a transgender student dressing in a way that is most consistent with their gender identity, changing their hairstyle, using their preferred pronouns, and possibly changing their name. It is well known that transgender children experience significantly higher rates of depression and anxiety than their cisgender peers, which is exacerbated by gender dysphoria and harassment. Transgender children who have not socially transitioned and are not affirmed report much higher rates of depression and anxiety than transgender children who have socially transitioned and are affirmed. Transgender youth who have been able to socially transition reported depression levels equivalent to their cisgender peers, and only marginally higher rates of anxiety (Durwood et al., 2017). Furthermore, the use of a transgender person’s chosen name is associated with reduced depression symptoms, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behaviors (Russell et al., 2018). Family and peer support, especially at school, for socially transitioned youth are critical to ensuring their mental and physical wellbeing.

    Transgender people should have access to gendered facilities consistent with their gender identity. Many people opposed to this, claim that forcing transgender people to use bathrooms consistent with their sex assigned at birth will protect women and children. Trans men and masculine non-binary people  are often ignored by people making this claim. Opponents often frame transgender women in particular as dangerous and predatory in women’s spaces. This fear however, is not substantiated by data. A 2018 study states that, “…evidence that fears of increased safety and privacy violations as a result of [gender identity] nondiscrimination laws are not empirically grounded” (Hasenbush et al., 2018). A brief published by the HASS Institute stated,”…researchers have found that there is no evidence that safety and privacy is negatively impacted when restroom use is based on gender identity” (Creating Bathroom Access & a Gender Inclusive Society). In reality, the opposite effect is observed. Transgender people are put at a significantly greater risk of sexual assault and harassment when forced to use gendered facilities that do not match their gender identity. A 2019 study surveying 3673 transgender adolescents found that when their locker room and bathroom use was restricted to their sex assigned at birth instead of their gender identity, they were more likely to experience sexual assault than their transgender peers who were able to access gendered facilities consistent with the gender they identify as (Murchison et al., 2019). Transgender youth who have their access to bathrooms consistent with their gender identity restricted also experienced negative mental health effects as a result, with many experiencing a depressed mood and/or seriously considering suicide (Price-Feeney et al., 2020). Another concern with restricting the bathroom use of transgender people to their sex assigned at birth, is that many may then start to avoid using the bathroom. Some may take more drastic measures, such as not drinking anything while they are in an area where they know they will not have safe access to a bathroom consistent with their gender identity (White, 2023). Some may also attempt to “hold it”, which can lead to weakened bladders and kidneys, along with other health issues (Creating Bathroom Access & a Gender Inclusive Society). Transgender people having safe access to bathrooms and other gendered facilities matching their gender identity is important for ensuring their wellbeing and safety.

    Transgender people should be allowed to participate in sports matching their gender identity. It’s well known that youth sports participation is generally linked with a better overall wellbeing for students, and the same goes for transgender youth when inclusive policies are in place. However, many areas and sport organizations restrict the ability of transgender youth to play sports, which is a major barrier for any trans student to be able to participate in any sport (Jones et al., 2016). Given that trans youth are currently going through a nation wide mental health crisis, equity and access to sports, since they can increase overall wellbeing, is crucial. Trans students with safe and equitable access to spots report increased well being and a greater sense of belonging at school (Clark & Kosciw, 2021). Also, the effects of hormone treatments on trans people makes it more fair for them to participate on teams and in divisions most consistent with their gender. For trans women, after 12 months of hrt their testosterone levels were consistent with testosterone levels for cisgender women, lean mass decreased, fat mass increased, and muscle strength was significantly lower than cisgender men after a longer duration on hrt (Moreland et al., 2023). A 2021 meta analysis, which reviewed 21 studies, also found a decrease in muscle strength for trans women, and also found a significant increase for trans men (Nahon et al., 2021). Trans women were found to have decreased hemoglobin and hematocrit levels on hrt, and trans men were found to have increased hemoglobin and hematocrit levels (Nahon et al., 2021). A study done on trans men and women in the Air Force compared the number of pushups and sit ups done in one minute, and how fast they ran 1.5 miles, to cisgender women and men over a period of 2 years (Roberts et al., 2021). After 2 years of feminizing hrt, the difference between trans women and cis women in number of pushups and sit ups done in one minute disappeared (Roberts et al., 2021). While trans women were still slightly faster on average, there was still a significant decrease in the speed at which they were able to complete the 1.5 mile run (Roberts et al., 2021). After 1 year of masculinizing hrt, there was no difference in run time or number of pushups and sit ups done in one minute between trans men and cis men (Roberts et al., 2021). The extent to which hrt effects the performance of trans athletes is still being researched, but our current research suggest that the effects are significant enough that trans athletes should be allowed to participate in teams and in divisions consistent with their gender identity after being on hrt for a certain amount of time. A very recent study sponsored by the International Olympic Committee also cautioned against transgender sport bans, and even found that trans women had some disadvantages against cis women in sports (Hamilton et al., 2024). Sports participation could also be a key way to help ease the current mental health crisis amongst trans youth.

    Safe access to gender affirming medical care (GAMC) is critical for transgender people. Not only is GAMC safe and scientifically backed, but it is also shown to have a very positive impact on the mental health and wellbeing of trans people. The Endocrine Society released an article saying, “ Indeed, study after study show that providing gender-affirming care, including GAHT [Gender Affirming Hormone Treatment] when desired, improves health and well-being, even, and especially, mental health” (Bagley, 2022). GAMC is linked with improved mental health (Achille et al., 2020; Miesen et al., 2020; Diana M. Tordoff, 2022). Trans youth who had access to GAMC had 60% lower odds of depression, and 73% lower odds of suicidality (Diana M. Tordoff, 2022). Trans adults who wanted puberty blockers as adolescents and were able to get them had lower odds of lifetime suicidality compared to those who were not able to access puberty blockers (Turban et al., 2020). Furthermore, the age at which trans people were able to access GAMC had an impact on their likelihood of having a depression diagnosis, self-harm, and suicidality. Trans people who were only able to access GAMC later in life (15≤) were more likely to be diagnosed with depression, have self-harmed, have considered suicide, have attempted suicide, and have required psychoactive medications compared to trans people who were able to access GAMC at a younger age (15>) (Sorbara et al., 2020). Also, the 2022 U.S. Trans Survey Early Insights report found that of the 92,329 respondents, 94% (79% a lot more satisfied, 15% a little more satisfied) were more satisfied with their life since their transition (James et al., 2024). GAMC is safe. Although their use for trans patients is more recent, puberty blockers have been used for over 30 years and have a good track record showing them to be safe and effective (Ruttimann, 2013). A 2020 study looked into the effects of puberty blockers on bone mineral density and the effects of hormone therapy treatments on bone mineral density after the use of puberty blockers in both trans men and girls (Schagen et al., 2020). Bone mass apparent density (BMAD) z - scores did decrease for all involved groups during puberty blocker treatment, but increased again with hormone therapy following puberty suppression (Schagen et al., 2020). The z - scores for trans boys was considered normal both at baseline, and at the end of the study, but trans girls had relatively low z - scores both at baseline and after the study (Schagen et al., 2020). However this could be explained by a difference in lifestyle since the trans girls involved were generally less active than the trans boys (Schagen et al., 2020). The effects of puberty blockers are also reversible (Boerner, 2024). All forms of GAMC are safe, with established guidelines provided by major medical organizations (Boerner, 2024). GAMC is medically and scientifically backed, is safe, and is effective for improving the wellbeing of transgender people.

    On top of being safe, regret from GAMC is rare. A survey of 3398 trans patients at a UK gender clinic looked at detransition rates (Davies et al.). Of those 3398, only 16 (0.47%) expressed any sort of transition regret (Davies et al.).1 expressed regret but did not want to detransition, 2 considered detransition, 3 detransitioned, and 10 only temporarily detransitioned (Davies et al.). The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, which had 27,715 respondents, found that only about 8% reported having ever detransitioned (James et al., 2016). Among those who detransitioned, the most common reasons were; pressure from a parent (36%), transitioning was too hard for them for a variety of reasons (33%), they faced too much discrimination and harassment (31%), had trouble getting a job (29%), or had pressure from family members (26%) (James et al., 2016). Other reasons were pressure from;a spouse/partner, an employer, friends, a mental health professional, and pressure from a religious counselor (James et al., 2016). Only 5% of the respondents who detransitioned said that they did so because they felt that transitioning wasn’t right for them (James et al., 2016). That is 110.86 (0.4%) people out of 27,715. Detransition is rare, and the reasons for it are complex. However most people who detransition don’t do so because they truly regretted their transition, but due to at least one external factor. Detransition rates could actually be lowered by making GAMC more accessible, and combating anti-trans stigma and bigotry. GAMC has some of the lowest retreat rates of all medical interventions. With any other medical intervention, the low regret rate that GAMC has would be considered miraculous, and a great success. However GAMC, as a result of anti-trans prejudice, is subject to far more scrutiny around regret rates than other medical interventions, including life saving ones. The same level of scrutiny GAMC receives when it comes to treating transgender people, is not present when the same exact treatments that make up GAMC are used to treat other conditions. Puberty blockers are used to treat precocious puberty and hormone sensitive cancers. HRT is used for menopause, certain thyroid disorders, and many other hormone conditions. Some surgeries used for trans people, like mastectomies, are also used for cisgender people. These same treatments don’t receive the same scrutiny when used for cisgender people as they do when used to help transgender people. Objections to GAMC and attempts to restrict, are primarily rooted in transphobia rather than an actual concern about their safety and regret rates. GAMC is essential for the mental wellbeing of trans individuals, it is safe, and detransition because of transition regret is very rare.

Theological Arguments for LGBTQ+ Rights and Inclusion:

    I feel that I have now thoroughly addressed the scientific reasoning as to why the anti-trans policy adopted by [REDACTED] is wrong and harmful. So now I will address the theological reasonings and arguments as to why using Christianity to justify bigotry against LGBTQ+ people is egregiously wrong. For the purpose of making it easier to find exactly where the information I cited is coming from, I will use MLA in-text citations for sources with distinct page numbers. Christianity has unfortunately become a tool used by many to oppress other groups of people. It has historically and currently been used against women, Jewish people, people of other religions, black people, and LGBTQ+ people. In this section, I will provide a brief overview of ancient Rome’s culture around sex and gender, thoroughly break down the passages commonly used to condemn LGBTQ+ people, address verses that support inclusion of LGBTQ+ people, discuss what has historically and currently led some Christians to use the Bible to oppress marginalized groups, address the verses [REDACTED] has used to justify its anti-trans policy, and provide a brief argument based on Matthew 7:15-20.

   While there was a concept of homosexuality (and more generally LGBTQ+ people) in Ancient Rome, their understanding of it and the social norms around it varies greatly from today. Same-sex relationships were more similar to a power dynamic than a consensual and loving relationship between two people. Social norms and laws varied from region to region in Ancient Rome, but sexual relations between two men of equal societal standing was generally considered taboo (Miller & Platter, 2005). In Rome, it was bad for any male, except for a slave or prostitute (eunuchs were often slaves and prostitutes), to be penetrated (Miller & Platter, 2005). Pederasty was generally more acceptable than sexual relations between two people of the same societal standing and sex (Miller & Platter, 2005). Boys and eunuchs were viewed as having bodies more similar to women than men (Rowlands, 62). This is why pederasty and sex with enslaved eunuchs was viewed as more acceptable than two adult free men who were citizens. Discussion of same-sex lovers as a class by writers, only happened occasionally (Miller & Platter, 2005). Homoseuxality (and by extension LGBTQ+ people generally), was not recognized as a category of personal identity as it is today. In Ancient Rome, sex was not an immutable category, but rather it was the result of a process of transformation (through male puberty) or failure to transform (Rowlands, 25). Maleness was something a person achieved and maintained (Rowlands, 25). Those who failed to achieve or maintain maleness were put into five categories; women, boys, eunuchs, possibly cinaedi (effeminate, “soft” men) and other men deemed excessively effeminate (Rowlands, 25). A person who possesses a body which would be deemed as male today, may not necessarily be deemed as male by Roman standards (Rowlands, 48). This brief paragraph summarizes  the cultural aspects around sex and gender at the time, which will be expanded on.

    Many anti-LGBTQ+ Christians point to our modern translations of verses and passages in the Old Testament, as proof that God condemns LGBTQ+ people. The modern translations of Genesis 19:1-29, Judges 19:1-30, Leviticus 18:22 are commonly cited by anti-LGBTQ+ Christians to justify their beliefs about LGBTQ+ people. However, these verses are actually quite ambiguous on if they condemn being LGBTQ+ or not. Arguably, they do not. Genesis 19:1-29 talks about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. A common claim by anti-LGBTQ+ Christians is that Sodom and Gromorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality. It should be noted that Genesis 19-1-29 and Judges 19:1-30 are extremely similar, they are nearly identical (Gnuse, 2015). While these passages are commonly used against LGBTQ+ people, these passages more likely were meant to condemn inhospitality (Squires, 2021). Hospitality was a key value in ancient Israel, and these verses are meant to give a lesson about the importance of it (Squires, 2021). In both of these passages, a group of men wanted to rape visitors, the host offered women in their household for the men to rape instead, and in both it ended badly with the men being blinded in one and the other ending with the rape of a woman (Gnus, 2015). Even Jesus seems to agree that these two cities were destroyed for their inhospitality (Matthew 10:14-15). Ezekiel 16:49-50 says that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not about sexual sin, but about their sin of not providing hospitality (Squires, 2021). John Rogers, a Presbyterian theologian and minister, puts it best in his book Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality, “ The central idea in these passages is the sacred obligation of hospitality for travelers (and the ways in which sinful people often violated this sacred obligation)” (Rogers, 67). Rogers goes on to quote Daniel Helminiak, a psychology professor at the State University of West Georgia, who states how homosexual rape was a traditional way for victors to subjugate captive enemies and how it was used to humiliate them (Rogers 67). In this case, it was being used to subjugate and humiliate people who were thought of as foreigners. Genesis 19:1-29 and Judges 19;1-30 do not condemn LGBTQ+ people, but rather they condemn inhospitality.

    Leviticus 18:22 is part of the old Jewish law, and is another verse commonly cited to condemn gay people (and all LGBTQ+ people generally). A surface reading of current day translations of this verse will lead some people to condemning gay people, but a deeper understanding of this verse will not lead you to condemning gay people. It will lead you to a better understanding of the culture at the time. Leviticus, the ancient Israelites’ Holiness Code, originated from their need to form a tight knit community for survival after their release from slavery in Egypt (Rogers, 68). It was intended to define their religious and cultural identity, and separate them from the Egyptians and Canaanites (Rogers, 68). It is also of note, that this apparent prohibition of homosexuality occurs between a verse condemning child sacrifice to Molech (a deity worshiped by the Canaanites) and a verse condemning both men and women who have sex with animals, a practice which was sometimes used to have communion with specific deities (Gnus, 2015). Homosexual acts were sometimes used to worship idols during these times, and it being included between verses condemning different worship practices of the Canaanites heavily suggests that the condemnation of homosexuality was primarily towards it being used to worship idols (Gnus, 2015; Squires, 2021). Another aspect was their culture of male superiority. Part of the Israelites’ Holiness Code was to prevent Israelites from mixing with non-Israelites, which was then generalized to prevent mixing of any kind (Rogers, 69). This is where we get prohibitions on sewing fields “with two kinds of seed” and wearing clothes “made of two different materials” (Leviticus 19:19). Homosexuality was viewed as mixing gender roles, and a threat to male superiority because a man took the role assigned to women at the time (Rogers, 69). This would also be considered very improper, because it was interpreted as a man allowing himself to be treated as a woman (Kraus, 102). We do not follow the majority of the laws in Leviticus today, and we do not need to since Jesus fulfilled the old law (Matthew 5:17). Furthermore, the Hebrew word translated as “abomination”, toevah, is used to refer to something which makes a person ritually unclean (Rogers, 69). Jesus isn’t concerned with that though, he is concerned with purity of the heart (Matthew 15:18-20). Rogers puts it best, stating, “ When these texts in Leviticus are taken out of their historical and cultural context and applied to faithful, God-worshiping Christians who are homosexual, it does violence to them”, and, “ They are being condemned for failing to conform to an ancient culturally conditioned code that is not applicable to them or their circumstances” (Rogers, 69-70). These texts should not be used to condemn LGBTQ+ people.

    Whenever discussions around LGBTQ+ people come up in the church, Romans 1:18-27 is a commonly cited passage used to condemn LGBTQ+ people. It is viewed as the first reference to homosexuality in the New Testament. Many Christians falsely interpret this passage as Paul condemning homosexuality, thus God condemning it as well. Micheal Younes in his master’s essay says, “ No one in Paul’s time had a concept of “sexual orientation” as it was developed nearly 2000 years after his lifetime” (Younes, 3). Romans 1:18-27 does not address our modern understanding of sexual orientation since it did not exist at that time, and would be foreign to an ancient understanding of sexuality (Younes, 19). What was most likely being condemned here, was a form of idol worship that utilized temple prostitution (Squires, 2021), as well as general infidelity (Boswell, 108). What is unnatural, is otherwise heterosexual men engaging in homosexual acts, and Rome rejecting monotheism (Boswell, 108-109). The Greek words para physin, translated as “contrary to nature” and “unnatural”, were used by Paul when he appears (in modern translations) to be condemning homosexuality (Oppression Created in Translation: How the Bible is Used and Misued). It can also be translated as “unconventional” (Ramos, 3). For Paul, “unnatural” may have actually been a synonym for “unconventional”, meaning something “ surprisingly out of the ordinary” (Rogers, 74). Evidence for this comes from Romans 11:13-24, where Paul describes God including Gentiles by grafting them into the “cultivated olive tree of God’s people” (Rogers, 74). God cannot sin, so saying that he did something contrary or against nature meant that he did something surprising and out of the ordinary (Rogers, 74). Thus it can be argued that Paul is not talking about a violation of the order of creation when he uses the word physis (nature), and that physis is not used as a synonym for ktisis (creation), but rather Paul is accepting a conventional view of humanity and how they were expected to behave in first-century Hellenistic-Jewish culture (Rogers, 74). Romans also contains a general theme of advocating for people on the margins of society, protecting them, and welcoming them into their Father’s love (Ramos, 5). Using Romans 1:18-27 to argue against LGBTQ+ people is taking this passage out of its historical and cultural contexts, and harming people with it.

     Like Romans 1:18-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is often used to condemn LGBTQ+ people. The exact wording of this passage, like all others in the Bible, varies depending on which translation you read. However the original word malakos, one of the words often  translated in ways that appear to condemn gay people, quite literally translates to “soft” (Kraus, 102). The culture surrounding Paul at the time, was incredibly patriarchal, and so for a man to be effeminate (to be “soft”) was viewed as a moral flaw at that time (Kraus, 102; Rogers, 71). Arsenokoites, another word which is often translated as “sodomites” or homosexual, is only used twice in the Bible (Kraus, 102).  It is used in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:10 (Kraus, 102). Since it is only used twice, occurs with no context, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is the very first time arsenokoites was ever used, translating it accurately is nearly impossible (Kraus, 102). After analyzing arsenokoites, it most likely refers to economic exploitation by sexual means through rape, prostitution, sex by economic coercion, pimping, or by other sexual means (Rogers, 70-71). In 1 Timothy 1:10, arsenokoitai (plural of arsenokoites) is followed by slave traders (andrapodistes), who obviously exploited others for their own gain (Rogers, 71).  The fact that it is followed by slave traders, adds credence to the idea of arsenokoites referring to a type of exploitation, since in a list of vices, similar vices were often grouped together (Rogers, 71). The word pornos is also included in 1 Timothy 1:10, and most likely translates to a male having sex outside of marriage, either with a female or another male (Squires, 2021). These terms were all used together. Slave traders (andrapodisters) would act as pimps, trading captured boys (pornos), and those boys would then be taken advantage of by powerful men (arsenokoites) (Squires, 2021). It should be noted that, given the culture of the time and the fact that the most commonly recognized form of homosexual sex was exploitative, the people Paul wrote to may have seen his words as a way of protecting people from sexual exploitation (Ramos, 5). This is obviously not the case today, as those in committed gay relationships base their relationship off of a genuine love for their partner. All Christians must be careful to avoid reading their own prejudices into scripture. These texts, put back in their historical and cultural context, do not speak to our current day understanding of LGBTQ+ people. They do not condemn genuine and non-exploitative gay relationships.

    A key point with all of these verses used to condemn LGBTQ+ people, is that none of them come from Jesus. As Christians, we often ask ourselves, “What would Jesus do?”, or, “What would Jesus say?”. Jesus wouldn’t discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, wouldn’t deny transgender people the medical care we need, wouldn’t deny gay people marriage and the benefits that come with it, wouldn’t yell slurs at us and say we are going to hell for being who we were made to be, wouldn’t bully us, wouldn't say we are devils and imps, wouldn’t call us a danger to children, wouldn’t deny us full and equal membership in the church, and wouldn’t put policies in place that directly harm and discriminate against us. Yet all of these things have been said and done by people who claim to follow Jesus. Jesus welcomed all kinds of people, and invited them into God’s community (Rogers, 128). He especially welcomed those who were marginalized, outcasts, aliens, foreigners, and the forgotten (Rogers, 128). The Parable of the Good Samaritan is an example of this. A religious lawyer asks Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life (Luke 10:25). Jesus responds by asking what is written in Jewish law, and how he reads it (Luke 10:26). The lawyer responds with Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18, which states that “ You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and love your neighbor as yourself (Luke 10:27). Jesus then says that he has given the right answer, to do that and you will live (Luke 10:28). This is all we should need, to justify the full acceptance of LGBTQ+ people as full and equal members of the church and society. It is the heart of the Christian message, and the rest is just commentary. The lawyer, who wanted to justify himself and his own prejudices, asks Jesus who is his neighbor, and Jesus responds by telling the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37). Kenneth Bailey, a New Testament scholar and Middle East expert, pointed out how a Samaritan, especially one with a wounded Jew on the back of his animal, wouldn’t be safe in a Jewish town (Bailey, 2008). Despite saving the Jewish man’s life, community vengeance could’ve been enacted on him (Bailey, 2008)). The reality, which is often overlooked, is that the Samaritan man’s final act, is that he risked his life in order to care for this Jewish man in a Jewish inn (Bailey, 2008). Jesus used an outsider, an alien, who was hated, as an example for how we are to act towards our neighbors (Rogers, 129). That includes LGBTQ+ people, who are today’s hated outsiders. We are to love our neighbors, ourselves, and those deemed outsiders.

    Jesus later mentions three types of eunuchs, three types of sexual minorities (Matthew 19:11-12). He mentions people who were made eunuchs by others, people who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven, and most importantly to discussions of LGBTQ+ people and equality in the church, those who were born eunuchs. Jesus is asked a question about heterosexual marriages by his disciples in Matthew 19:10, and immediately broadens the discussion to recognize sexual minorities (Matthew 19:11-12). He then goes on to state that those who can accept this teaching should (Matthew 19:12). This passage is particularly of note, since Deuteronomy 23:1 and Leviticus 21:17-23 explicitly excluded eunuchs from being in assembly with the Lord, and from being near the curtain and altar. Jesus is rejecting the Jewish tradition of excluding eunuchs (Jennings, 147). While many Christians view eunuchs simply as castrated men who were celibate, that isn’t exactly the case. Eunuchs were considered neither celibate or morally chaste (Hester, 3). In fact, they were characterized universally by their ease of, adeptness, and frequency at which they engaged in sex acts with both men and women (Hester, 6). Eunuchs even gained fame through prostitution (Jennings, 149). Tom Horner, in his book Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times, backs this up by saying, “ Eunuchs, however they became such, were not totally without sexual desires but were, in many cases, active homosexual practitioners” (Horner, 123). Being a eunuch didn’t always lead to a person refraining from marriage (Jennings, 152). As mentioned earlier, eunuchs were considered as a different category from males. Their bodies, and their sex, were complicated to define (Rowlands, 59). There were high incidences of gynecomastia (female-like breast development) in eunuchs castrated before puberty that were observed by Aristotle (Rowlands, 60). Aristotle defined eunuchs as “left between sexes” (Rowland, 61). They could move between rigid public-private zones of masculinity and femininity, and not fully embody one or both sexed identities. Their ability to take on properties of male/masculine and female/feminine worlds socially, sexually, physically, culturally, and politically was the main cause of their ambivalent social status (Hester, 3). Their gender-sex status though, was the reason they were despised and viewed as morally dubious and profligate (Hester, 7). LGBTQ+ people are often viewed similarly today. It wasn’t until several centuries later, under the guidance of aristocratic bishops that eunuchs were made into a symbol of celibacy (Hester, 3). As David Hester, a New Testament Scholar states, “ Modern interpreters perpetuating the celibate reading of this text do so without recourse to significant socio-historical gender-norm data of the ancient Mediterranean World” (Hester, 3). Eunuchs were sexual minorities, just as LGBTQ+ (which includes intersex people) are sexual minorities. Theodore Jennings, a theologian and Methodist minister, says that, “ This solidarity with the most marginal is the hallmark of the authentic Jesus tradition, and the abandonment of this solidarity is the measure of the church’s betrayal of the one it calls “Lord, Lord” (Jennings, 154).

Jesus was able to recognize and accept sexual minorities, particularly people whose gender and sex were often considered ambiguous and/or something other than man or woman. Eunuchs also engaged in sexual acts that we would classify as homosexual today, and transgressed the heterosexist structure. Jesus still recognized and accepted them. He did not require them to change who they were, to deny who they were. He accepted them, and the church should do the same for LGBTQ+ people.

    The story of the Ethiopian eunuch is held dear to many LGBTQ+ Christians. It is a reminder that Jesus accepts us just as we are, and that we do not need to pretend to be or become heterosexual and cisgender despite what many anti-LGBTQ+ Christians will say. Eunuchs were specifically excluded from the Lord’s assembly in Deuteronomy 23:1, Leviticus 21:16-23 said that eunuchs and other people who were “blemished” couldn’t go near the curtain or alter, which was later reversed in Isaiah 56:3-5. Inclusion of eunuchs was made more clear in Matthew 19:11-12, and finally with the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-39. The Holy Spirit led Philip to baptize an Ethiopian eunuch, which may not have been his first instinct given their differences and the fact that the eunuch was a foreigner, a racial minority, and belonged to a sexual minority that wasn’t fully included or welcomed in the worship community of Israel (Rogers, 132). Theologian John J. McNeil writes, “ The symbolism of the passage is quite obvious, the  Holy Spirit takes the initiative in leading the new Christian community to include among its members those who were excluded for sexual reasons from the Old Testament community” (McNeil, 65). When leading a sermon about Deuteronomy 23:1, Isaiah 56:3-5, Matthew 19:11-12, and Acts 8:26-39, Pastor Dan Schrock states, “ These four biblical texts show a trajectory toward welcoming eunuchs into the fellowship of God’s people. This group of alternative gendered sexual minorities is no longer rejected but welcomed” (Schrock, 7). As with Matthew 19:11-12, many anti-LGBTQ+ Christians will argue that eunuchs were celibate and simply castrated men. As I made clear in the previous paragraph though, eunuchs were not celibate and were considered something other than a man or woman. Their inability to produce children didn’t exclude them from sexual practices (Jennings, 149). While they may have held high status amongst their own people, they would’ve still been marginalized in Jewish communities and many of the cultures in the Greco-Roman world (Burke, 6). Much like Jesus was marginalized and humiliated by powerful people at the time, the Ethiopian eunuch would’ve also been marginalized and humiliated in a way that their position as court treasurer couldn’t fully compensate for (Jennings, 155). After being baptized by Philip, they went on rejoicing (Acts 8:39). As a result of anti-LGBTQ+ interpretations of the Bible, sexual and gender minorities have not only been marginalized and humiliated, but prevented from the rejoicing by which the gospel’s spread to all of the earth has been signified (Jennings, 155). Jennings goes on to state, “…the preservation of this story in Acts has had the result that those who identify with this Ethiopian eunuch, whether as African, under conditions of colonialism or racism, or as sexually marginalized, under conditions of heterosexism and homophobia, have been enabled to recognize their own significance in the history of God’s dealings with humanity” (Jennings, 155). The story of the Ethiopian eunuch serves as an example, that the church should welcome sexual and gender minorities.

    So why do some Christians still use the Bible to oppress and condemn LGBTQ+ people? What had led the church to that? The answer lies in the past. This is not the only time in church history that the Bible has been wrongly used to justify oppression and prejudice, and condemn minority groups of people. In the not too distant past, the Bible was used to justify slavery and segregation, and the oppression of women. During the time of slavery, Genesis 9:20-26, and Ephesians 6:5 were favorites amongst white slave holders (Rae, 2018). “The Curse of Ham” originated from Genesis 9:20-26 being used to justify slavery (Rae, 2018). Canaan was dropped, Ham was made black, and his descendants were believed to be African people (Rae, 2018). It is not stated anywhere in the Bible that Ham is the ancestor of the black race, it was western theological tradition that designated him as such (Rogers, 18-19). Ephesians 6:5 was used to encourage enslaved Africans to be obedient to their enslavers. Richard Fuller, Samuel B. How, James Furman, James Henley Thornwell, and Robert Lewis Dabney were prominent theologians and pastors that used the Bible to defend slavery (Hollifield, 2016; Rogers, 19-25). The Bible was also used to oppress women. One of the most prominent passages used for this is Genesis 3:1-16. Women were viewed as the origin of sin, the devil’s gateway, the ones responsible for destroying God’s image of man (Rogers, 26). Amongst the justifications for slavery and the oppression of women, a clear pattern emerged. Church leaders claimed that the Bible recorded God’s judgment against the sin of women and black people from their first mention in scripture, black people and women are inferior to white men and cannot rise to the level of full white male “Christian civilization”, and black people and women were willfully sinful and promiscuous, thus they deserved punishment for their own actions (Rogers, 33). It shouldn’t need to be stated as to why these views were both wrong. Theologians, pastors, and much of the general Christian community in the U.S. came to these conclusions using Scottish Common Sense Philosophy and Francis Turretin’s theology (Rogers, 33). Scottish Common Sense Philosophy emphasized acceptance of what was considered the common sense of all humankind, and that people know the reality of the world (Rogers, 30). Francis Turrentin’s theology was utilized to provide a framework for arranging supposed “facts” that Scottish Common Sense Philosophy enabled theologians to understand the “natural” meaning of (Rogers, 31). Through Scottish Common Sense Philosophy and Francis Turrentin’s theology, many prominent Christians felt confident in their justifications for slavery, segregation, and the oppression of women. This culminated in the three main justifications for these things. Today, many Christians now use these same justifications against LGBTQ+ people. They claim that the Bible recorded God’s judgment against the sin of LGBTQ+ people, that LGBTQ+ people cannot live up to the level of heterosexual and cisgender people, and that LGBTQ+ people are willfully sinful and promiscuous, thus we deserve punishment for our actions. Robert Williams, author of Just as I am, puts it nicely,

"Without interpretation, without placing it in its cultural, historical, and literary context, the Bible can be used for evil—and it has been, often. The Bible has been misused against our people so often and so destructively it is difficult for us to celebrate it as 'the Word of God'" (Williams, 82).This is a pattern, which has repeated itself multiple times throughout history.

    Now I will address the specific Bible verses [REDACTED] Christian Schools has used to justify its anti-trans policy. The specific verses used are Genesis 1:26, John 1:3, Jeremiah 1:4-5, and Psalm 139:13-16. Simply put, none of these verses have anything to do with whether or not transgender identities are valid and accepted by God. Why [REDACTED] has chosen these specific verses to attempt to justify its anti-trans positions baffles me. Like every human being, we are made in God’s image. Socially and medically transitioning is not a rejection of that image, but rather an expression of it. It is an act of self-love, and acceptance of our innermost self. When a person tries to reject their trans identity, they are rejecting who God made them to be, and thus rejecting part of his image. A person rejecting their trans identity, is not an act of self-love, but one of self-hate. It results in inevitable harm coming to that person, as I have personally experienced. Before going on to cite Genesis and how God made people male and female, I heavily suggest observing the world around you. It says night and day, yet dawn and dusk exist. It says land and sea, but marshes, wetlands, and estuaries exist. It says male and female, yet intersex people and other groups of people exist that do not have typically male or female bodies. Not to mention that male and female refers mainly to sex, and we have since come to understand that sex and gender are different. There have always been things, and people, who exist in between the distinct categories mentioned in Genesis. Genesis is a book of metaphors, not everything is meant to be taken literally.

    I’ll end off this section with a brief, but effective argument. Matthew 7:15-20 states that we will be known by our fruit. It also states that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. The fruit of the non-affirming approach includes poor mental health, increased suicide and self-harm  rates, more turning away from the church and God, hate, oppression, and rejection for LGBTQ+ people. The fruit of the affirming approach includes better mental health, decreased suicide and self-harm rates, people being less likely to turn away from the church and God, love, support for the oppressed, and acceptance for LGBTQ+ people. It’s extremely clear that the non-affirming approach is the bad few and the affirming approach is the good tree. Why wouldn’t [REDACTED] want to be known by the fruit of the good tree?

My Personal Experiences at [REDACTED] and Thoughts:

    I cannot see a future in which [REDACTED] is not forced to change its stance on LGBTQ+ people or to shut down, if it does not willingly adopt inclusive and affirming policies. When writing this letter, I am using my voice to elevate not only myself and my experiences, but to do my best to elevate the voices and experiences of my peers, alumni, and LGBTQ+ students generally. The anti-LGBTQ+ policies and positions [REDACTED] currently enforces and stands by, cause nothing more than harm and division. They soil Christ’s name, and distorts his image from one of powerful and unifying love, to one of harm and oppression. Christianity already has an extremely negative reputation amongst the LGBTQ+ community because of its past and current use as a tool of oppression through conversion therapy, the denial of civil rights, the consistent demonization of the LGBTQ+ community, its use to justify violence against the LGBTQ+ community, its use as justification to exclude the LGBTQ+ community, its use as justification to shame the LGBTQ+ community, and more. When [REDACTED] adopts anti-LGBTQ+ policies and views, it continues with this legacy of Christianity as a tool of oppression, not as one of love and unity. [REDACTED] preaches unity, being authentic, diversity, and love for one another. To LGBTQ+ students, those words are hollow, and cruel jokes. Discriminatory policies and beliefs are not compatible with unity, diversity, and love for one another. It shouldn’t need to be said that restricting the ability of transgender students to express that part of themselves in any way is fundamentally incompatible with diversity and the message that students should be able to be authentic to themselves. Everything that [REDACTED] preaches about loving one another, diversity, unity, and authenticity, are directly contradicted by its own policies and positions in regards to LGBTQ+ people, and especially transgender students.

    [REDACTED], by upholding anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ+ policies, fosters a culture of hate. It does not matter how much the language used in these policies and by staff is “flowered up” or “sugar coated”,  the effect is still the same. It creates division, and it others LGBTQ+ students. Too often on campus, there is a sense for LGBTQ+ students that we are the “other”, and it comes both from staff and other students. I’ve personally heard many students use anti-LGBTQ+ slurs, and even heard one of my teachers, [REDACTED], say that being gay was a “perversion”, and that being trans was “delusional”. In my ASL 2 class during my Junior year, one of my fellow classmates questioned me about my trans status. He asked a series of uncomfortable questions, including a question about what’s in my pants, and what parts I was born with. He kept asking those questions, despite me making it clear to him that I was uncomfortable and asking him to stop. [REDACTED] did not intervene. On March 6th, 2024, right after [REDACTED] chapel, I heard a student say, “ I hate trans people”. On the wrestling team, there was this overwhelming sense that I did not belong there. During my first season on the high school wrestling team, I was asked if I would prefer to have a gay son or a thot daughter. Thot is a slang term often used to disparage sexually active women who are viewed as being promiscuous. It is also a common myth about gay people, particularly bisexual people (and those who fall under the umbrella term bisexual but choose to use labels that are more specific to them, such as myself) and gay men, that they are inherently promiscuous. It was clear from their tone and the way they reacted to my answer, that they thought that a gay son was worse than a thot daughter. They already knew I was LGBTQ+ prior to asking me that, and the whole wrestling team seemed to laugh and treat me as the outlier. It was exceptionally clear that I was the “other” because I am LGBTQ+, and I am far from the only LGBTQ+ person to experience this “othering” on campus. It is part of a pervasive culture of hate, which is perpetuated by [REDACTED]’s own policies and beliefs. It doesn’t matter how much [REDACTED] stresses a message of unity, love, and authenticity, when [REDACTED]’s policies around LGBTQ+ students contradict this message and perpetuates a culture of hate and othering towards LGBTQ+ people. There was a quote on a teacher’s door, from Ruby Bridges, saying, “ Racism is a grown-up disease, and we should stop using our kids to spread it.” This quote however, doesn’t just apply to racism, it applies to all prejudices, including homophobia and transphobia. Homophobia and transphobia are grown up diseases, and people should stop using their kids to spread it. [REDACTED] spreads it to enrolled students, and they spread it to other people. [REDACTED]’s homophobia and transphobia seeps into the minds’ of its students, and creates a campus culture of hate towards LGBTQ+ students. [REDACTED]’s policies and beliefs, its connection to the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), and its connection to the Alliance Defending Freedom through ACSI, all culminate in a pervasive and infectious culture of hate. It spreads like a virus, infecting people’s minds and suffocating LGBTQ+ people.

    During my time here in middle school, I was going through two journeys, which would inevitably become deeply connected to each other. One was a journey with my mental health, which included hospitalization towards the end of my 7th grade year. The other was a journey of self-discovery, in which I began discovering my LGBTQ+ identity. Yet I denied parts of it. For a long while, I denied any thought, feeling, or sign that I could be transgender. The evidence that I was trans was undeniable, and yet I still tried to deny it. I tried to push it away, turn away from it, to pretend it wasn’t there. I tried to pretend to be a cisgender woman. Later, I tried to pray it all away. I tried to pray away who I was, because I was led to believe that who I was, was condemned by God. I was terrified of going to Hell, and that crushed my mental health. It made me hate myself, more than I had ever hated myself. [REDACTED] was not there for me. My teachers were not there for me. The counselors were not there for me. My parents were not there for me. I would be sitting there in my classes, consumed by guilt, sadness, anxiety, and fear. I would try not to cry in my classes. If I broke, I did my best to ensure I broke silently. Slowly but surely, I began to find affirming Christians and heal, and I could feel God’s love and warmth again. I had lost that feeling while trying to pray myself away. To this day, I am not sure if I have fully healed from this though.

   No matter how many LGBTQ+ people are driven away from [REDACTED] because of the extremely hostile environment, are expelled, suspended, or are in any way made to leave [REDACTED], there will always be LGBTQ+ students at [REDACTED]. So suggesting or forcing LGBTQ+ students to leave [REDACTED] is not, and never will be, a solution. It would only be another injustice that [REDACTED] has committed. The only solution to the ongoing injustice at [REDACTED], is to adopt LGBTQ+ inclusive and affirmative policies and stances. If [REDACTED] does not do this, then injustice and discrimination against LGBTQ+ students will always be prevalent here, and students will continue to suffer as a result. [REDACTED], by willingly perpetuating an anti-LGBTQ+ campus environment, will cause serious mental harm to LGBTQ + students. I can only hope and pray that it will never cause a student’s death or hospitalization. I can speak from experience of the harm [REDACTED] has done to LGBTQ+ students. A notable personal example being the extreme mental harm that was caused by the actions of  [REDACTED] during my eighth grade year. I had already been previously hospitalized because of my poor mental health, and at the time was quite mentally vulnerable. His decision to out me against my consent to my parents had a domino effect. Not only did I experience severe anxiety and panic, but the response from my parents and subsequent principal meeting put me in such a terrible head space, that if anyone knew how bad it truly was I could’ve been hospitalized again. Not only is outing LGBTQ+ students incredibly irresponsible, but it also opens them up to abuse and harm from their parents. LGBTQ+ kids have been kicked out of their homes by family members for simply being LGBTQ+. If an LGBTQ+ student is telling you about their identity, but has not told their parents, then it is for a good reason and you have no right to share that extremely sensitive information with anyone without their explicit permission. Doing so would be an egregious breach of their trust. Being LGBTQ+ does not present any harm to anyone, so there is no need to share that information about someone’s identity with anyone, without that person’s permission. I know that I am not the only LGBTQ+ student to experience such extreme mental harm as a direct result of actions taken by [REDACTED]’s staff members. I know I will be far from the last should [REDACTED] choose to continue this legacy of harm and discrimination against LGBTQ+ people. I would figure though, that a Christian school that wants to exemplify the qualities of Christ’s character would not want harm and discrimination to be apart of its legacy, since Christ stood against those things. When [REDACTED] enacts policies, and supports beliefs that harm and discriminate against LGBTQ+ students, it also harms and discriminates against Jesus, “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40).

    Jesus stood for the oppressed. We as Christians are called to be as much like Jesus as we possibly can. We can do so by helping the poor, serving each other, and crucially, standing for the oppressed just as Jesus did. During a time of darkness for the LGBTQ+ community, when we are facing a multitude of extreme attacks on our civil liberties and rights, [REDACTED] has chosen to stand with our oppressors. Jesus would not be happy with [REDACTED] discriminating against, harming, and oppressing members of the Body of Christ, and those made in God’s image. It does not matter if [REDACTED] takes an  “all LGBTQ+ people go to hell” type of approach, or a “love the sinner hate the sin” type of approach, the results are the same; harm, discrimination, religious trauma, and more people leaving Christianity. I find the “love the sinner hate the sin” approach particularly egregious. It’s like the snake in the Garden of Eden, deceiving people into believing that they can hate queerness without hating the queer person. An LGBTQ+ identity is apart of the person, not something that is separate. You cannot hate an LGBTQ+ identity without hating the person that embodies it. The only thing that would create positive results is the reformation of [REDACTED]’s beliefs and policies to be LGBTQ+ affirming. Only then can [REDACTED] begin to undo the harm it has caused by choosing to stand with our oppressors.

    I feel like Kimberly Shappley, a Christian mother of a transgender girl, who used to hold the same anti-LGBTQ+ stances that [REDACTED] does, is a great example. Through God, and the resilience of her transgender child, she confronted her anti-LGBTQ+ beliefs, and she changed as showcased in the short documentary, Kai Shappley: A Trans Girl Growing Up In Texas. After Texas passed an anti-trans bathroom bill, she found herself speaking at a press conference in Austin. She expressed her sincerest apologies to the LGBTQ+ community, saying, “ To the LGBTQ+ community I want to say, I’m sorry. I’m sorry for every time I plucked a Bible verse out of context, and I hurt you with it. I was a hateful reflection, of a loving God. Please forgive me”. She spoke those powerful words while crying, realizing just how much harm her anti-LGBTQ+ beliefs had caused. She ends off the documentary with another powerful quote, “ Kai is, the strongest willed person I have ever known. I don’t think any one thing could’ve broken me. If Kai wasn’t such a strong willed little kid, I would’ve broken her. Me being broken put me back together better, but if I had succeeded at breaking my daughter, the statistics say that it wouldn’t have turned out well for her”. I highly recommend that you watch this short documentary. It is available for free on YouTube, and follows Kai’s and Kimberly’s journey, but particularly Kimberly’s journey from anti-LGBTQ+ hate to her learning to accept her daughter for who she is and the LGBTQ+ community. Along with that short documentary, I highly recommend Pray Away. It is a documentary featuring people who used to be prominent members of the “ex-gay” movement, and details their experiences and what led them to leaving that movement. It talks about the harm caused to them by that movement. [REDACTED] could learn a lot from Pray Away and Kimberly Shappley, and the thousands of other Christians who accept and affirm the LGBTQ+ community. Consider this letter as my senior gift to [REDACTED]. If you seriously consider what I have to say, and make the necessary changes to promote an inclusive and safe learning environment for LGBTQ+ students, then [REDACTED] will become a much better school for ALL students.

Sincerely,

[REDACTED]

Alias: Lucas Frederick

Date: June, 2, 2024

Science Works Cited:

S1. The 2021 National School Climate Survey. GLSEN. (n.d.). https://www.glsen.org/research/2021-national-school-climate-survey

S2. Johns, M. M., Poteat, V. P., Horn, S. S., & Kosciw, J. (2019). Strengthening our schools to promote resilience and health among LGBTQ youth: Emerging evidence and research priorities from the state of LGBTQ Youth Health and wellbeing symposium. LGBT health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6551982/ 

S3. Russell, S. T., Bishop, M. D., Saba, V. C., James, I., & Ioverno, S. (2021, October 1). Promoting school safety for LGBTQ and all students. Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8454913/ 

S4. Fetner, T., & Elafros, A. (2015, August 7). The GSA difference: LGBTQ and ally experiences in high schools with and without gay-straight alliances. MDPI. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/4/3/563 

S5. Novella, S. (2023, June 17). The Science of Biological Sex. Science. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-biological-sex/

S6. Ainsworth, C., & magazine, N. (2024, February 20). Sex redefined: The idea of 2 sexes is overly simplistic. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

S7. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2023, May 8). What is gender? what is sex?. CIHR. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html 

S8. Fernández, R., Guillamon, A., Cortés-Cortés, J., Gómez-Gil, E., Jácome, A., Esteva, I., Almaraz, M., Mora, M., Aranda, G., & Pásaro, E. (2018). Molecular basis of Gender Dysphoria: androgen and estrogen receptor interaction. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 98, 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.07.032

S9. Fernández , R., Pásaro, E., Guillamón, A., Haro-Mora, J.-J., Roda, E., Alamaraz, M. C., Rumbo, T., Gómez-Gil, E., & Esteva, I. (2014, March 11). The (ca)n polymorphism of ERΒ gene is associated with FTM transsexualism. The journal of sexual medicine. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24274329/

S10. Foreman, M., Hare, L., York, K., Balakrishnan, K., Sánchez, F. J., Harte, F., Erasmus, J., Vilan , E., & Harley, V. R. (2019, February 1). Genetic link between gender dysphoria and sex hormone signaling. The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30247609/

S11. Joel , D., Berman, Z., Tavor, I., Wexler, N., Gaber, O., Stein, Y., Shefi , N., Pool, J., Urchs , S., Margulies, D. S., Liem , F., Hänggi, J., Jäncke, L., & Assaf , Y. (2015, November 30). Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic | proceedings ... pnas.org. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1509654112

S12. Kurth, F., Gaser, C., Sánchez, F. J., & Luders, E. (2022). Brain Sex in Transgender Women Is Shifted towards Gender Identity. Journal of clinical medicine, 11(6), 1582. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11061582

S13. Mueller, S. C., Guillamon, A., Zubiaurre-Elorza, L., Junque, C., Gomez-Gil, E., Uribe, C., Khorashad, B. S., Khazai, B., Talaei, A., Habel, U., Votinov, M., Derntl, B., S

Lanzenberger, R., Seiger, R., Kranz, G. S., Kreukels, B. P. C., Kettenis, P. T. C., Burke, S. M., Lambalk, N. B., Veltman, D. J., … Luders, E. (2021). The Neuroanatomy of Transgender Identity: Mega-Analytic Findings From the ENIGMA Transgender Persons Working Group. The journal of sexual medicine, 18(6), 1122–1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.03.079

S14. Ashley, F. (2020). A critical commentary on ‘rapid-onset gender dysphoria’. The Sociological Review, 68(4), 779-799. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120934693

S15. Littman L (2018) Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports. PLoS ONE 13(8): e0202330. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0202330

S16. Kesslen, B. (2022a, August 19). How the idea of a “transgender contagion” went viral-and caused untold harm. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/18/1057135/transgender-contagion-gender-dysphoria/

S17. Restar, A.J. Methodological Critique of Littman’s (2018) Parental-Respondents Accounts of “Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria”.Arch Sex Behav 49, 61–66 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1453-2

S18. Bauer, G. R., Lawson, M. L., & Metzger, D. L. (2021, November 16). Do clinical data from transgender adolescents support the phenomenon of “rapid onset gender dysphoria”? The Journal of Pediatrics. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347621010854 

S19. Turban, J. L., Dolotina, B., Freitag, T. M., King, D., & Keuroghlian, A. S. (2023, March 17). Age of Realization and Disclosure of Gender Identity Among Transgender Adults. Journal of Adolescent Health . https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(23)00070-8/abstract#%20

S20. CAAPS. (2021, July 26). ROGD statement. Coalition for the Advancement & Application of Psychological Science. https://www.caaps.co/rogd-statement

Newhook, J. T., Winters, K., Pyne, J., Jamieson, A., Holmes, C., Feder, S., Pickett, S., & Sinnott, M.-L. (2018, May). Teach your parents and providers well: Call for refocus on the health of trans and gender-diverse children. Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5951646/

Skinner, S. R., McLamore, Q., Donaghy, O., Stathis, S., Moore, J. K., Nguyen, T., Rayner, C., Tait, R., Anderson, J., & Pang, K. C. (2023, December 10). Recognizing and responding to misleading trans health ... Taylor&Francis. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2024.2289318

Ashley, F. (2021, May 5). The Clinical Irrelevance of “Desistance” Research for Transgender and Gender Creative Youth. florenceashely.com. https://www.florenceashley.com/uploads/1/2/4/4/124439164/ashley_the_clinical_irrelevance_of_%E2%80%9Cdesistance%E2%80%9D_research_for_transgender_and_gender_creative_youth.pdf

Olson, K. R., Durwood, L., Horton, R., Gallagher, N. M., & Devor, A. (2022, July 13). Gender identity 5 years after Social Transition. American Academy of Pediatrics. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/2/e2021056082/186992/Gender-Identity-5-Years-After-Social-Transition?autologincheck=redirected

Gaetano, B. P. (2017, November 15). David Reimer and John Money Gender reassignment controversy: The john/joan case. David Reimer and John Money Gender Reassignment Controversy: The John/Joan Case | Embryo Project Encyclopedia. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/david-reimer-and-john-money-gender-reassignment-controversy-johnjoan-case

Who was David Reimer (also, sadly, known as john/joan)?. Intersex Society of North America. (n.d.). https://isna.org/faq/reimer/

Simkus, J. (2023, June 23). Dr. John Money gender experiment: Reimer Twins. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/david-reimer.html 

Walker, J. (2022, January 30). The death of David Reimer. Reason.com. https://reason.com/2004/05/24/the-death-of-david-reimer/

Durwood, L., McLaughlin, K. A., & Olson, K. R. (2017). Mental Health and Self-Worth in socially transitioned transgender youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(2), 116-123.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2016.10.016

Russell, S. T., Pollitt , A. M., & Grossman, A. H. (2018, March 30). Chosen name use is linked to reduced depressive symptoms, suicidal ... Journal of Adolescent Health. https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(18)30085-5/fulltext

Hasenbush, A., Flores, A. R., & Herman, J. L. (2018, July 23). Gender identity nondiscrimination laws in public accommodations: A review of evidence regarding safety and privacy in public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms - sexuality research and social policy. SpringerLink.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z#citeas 

Murchison, G. R., Agénor, M., Reisner, S. L., & Watson, R. J. (2019). School restroom and locker room restrictions and sexual assault risk among transgender youth.Pediatrics, 143(6). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-2902

Creating Bathroom Access & A Gender Inclusive Society. Othering & Belonging Institute. (n.d.). https://belonging.berkeley.edu/bathroomaccesspolicybrief

Price-Feeney , M., Green, A. E., & Dorison, S. H. (2020, December 4). Impact of bathroom discrimination on Mental Health among transgender and nonbinary youth. Journal of Adolescent Health. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1054139X20306534

White, B. (2023a, June 1). Creating safe spaces: Why all-gender restrooms are essential for health and well-being. National Institutes of Health. https://www.edi.nih.gov/blog/communities/creating-safe-spaces-why-all-gender-restrooms-are-essential-health-and-well-being 

Jones, B. A., Arcelus, J., Bouman, W. P., & Haycraft, E. (2016, October 3). Sport and transgender people: A systematic review of the literature relating to sport participation and competitive sport policies - sports medicine. SpringerLink. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-016-0621-y

Clark, C. M., & Kosciw, J. G. (2021, March 2). Engaged or excluded: LGBTQ youth’s participation in school sports and their relationship to psychological well-being. Wiley Online Library. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pits.22500

Moreland, E., Cheung, A. S., Hiam, D., Nolan, B. J., Landen, S., jacques, M., Eynon, N., & Jones, P. (2023, June 8). Implications of gender-affirming endocrine care for sports participation. Sage Journals. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20420188231178373

Nahon, R. L., Silva, A. P. S. da, Muniz-Santos, R., Novaes, R. C. T. de, & Pedroso, L. S. P. L. (2021, November 15). Sports and performance in the transgender population: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte. https://www.scielo.br/j/rbme/a/CDkTksYcMPcKYTHGfcJLX4K/?lang=en

Roberts, T. A., Smalley, J., & Ahrendt, D. (2021, June 1). Effect of gender affirming hormones on athletic performance in transwomen and transmen: Implications for sporting organisations and legislators. British Journal of Sports Medicine. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577.abstract

Hamilton, B., Brown, A., Montagner-Moraes, S., Comeras-Chueca, C., Bush, P. G., Guppy, F. M., & Pitsiladis, Y. P. (2024, April 10). Strength, power and aerobic capacity of transgender athletes: A cross-sectional study. British Journal of Sports Medicine. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/58/11/586

Bagley, D. (2022, May 18). Gender-affirming care: Bridging the gap. Endocrine News. https://endocrinenews.endocrine.org/gender-affirming-care-bridging-the-gap/

Achille, C., Taggart, T., Eaton, N. R., Osipoff, J., Tafuri, K., Lane, A., & Wilson, T. A. (2020, April 30). Longitudinal impact of gender-affirming endocrine intervention on the mental health and well-being of transgender youths: preliminary results. International Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology . https://ijpeonline.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s13633-020-00078-2.pdf

Miesen, A. I. R. van der, Steensma , T. D., Vries, A. L. C. de, Bos , H., & Popma , A. (2020, April 6). Psychological Functioning in Transgender Adolescents Before and After Gender-Affirmative Care Compared With Cisgender General Population Peers. Journal of Adolescent Health. https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(20)30027-6/abstract#%20 

Diana M. Tordoff, M. (2022, February 25). Mental health outcomes in transgender and nonbinary youths receiving gender-affirming care. JAMA Network Open. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789423

Turban, J. L., King, D., Carswell, J. M., & Keuroghlian, A. S. (2020, February 1). Pubertal suppression for transgender youth and risk of suicidal ideation. American Academy of Pediatrics. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/145/2/e20191725/68259/Pubertal-Suppression-for-Transgender-Youth-and?autologincheck=redirected 

Sorbara, J. C., Chiniara, L. N. C. N., Thompson , S., & Palmert , M. R. (2020, October 1). Mental Health and Timing of Gender-Affirming Care . Publications.aap.org. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/146/4/e20193600/79683/Mental-Health-and-Timing-of-Gender-Affirming-Care

James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Durso, L. E., & Heng-Lehtinen, R. (2024, February). Early Insights: A Report of the 2022 U.S. Transgender Survey. transequality.org. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/2022%20USTS%20Early%20Insights%20Report_FINAL.pdf

Ruttimann, J. (2013, January). Blocking puberty in transgender youth. Endocrine News. https://endocrinenews.endocrine.org/blocking-puberty-in-transgender-youth/

Schagen, S. E. E., Wouters, F. M., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Gooren, L. J., & Hannema, S. E. (2020, September 10). Bone development in transgender adolescents treated with gnrh analogues and subsequent gender-affirming hormones. OUP Academic. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/105/12/e4252/5903559?login=false 

Boerner, H. (2024, February 20). What the science on gender-affirming care for transgender kids really shows. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/ 

Davies, S., McIntyre, S., & Rypma , C. (2019, April 11). Detransition rates in a national UK Gender Identity Clinic. epath.eu. https://epath.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Boof-of-abstracts-EPATH2019.pdf 

James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keislang, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016, December). The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. transequality.org . https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf

Theological Works Cited:

Miller, P. A., & Platter, C. (2005). Classical Studies: Homosexuality: Did the Concept of Homosexuality Exist in the Ancient World?. Gale. https://go.gale.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=Reference&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=MultiTab&retrievalId=e5b4334a-08d0-4ab3-82df-f42dda309104&hitCount=1&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CCX2878000014&docType=Viewpoint+essay&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=9781558627246&prodId=WHIC&pageNum=1&contentSet=GALE%7CCX2878000014&searchId=R3&userGroupName=san30851&inPS=true 

Rowlands, Rhiannon  M. “Eunuchs and Sex: Beyond Sexual Dichotomy In The Roman World” Mospace.Umsystem.Edu, May 2014, mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/44199/research.pdf.

The Holy Bible, New International Version. Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1984.

Gnuse, R. K. (2015, April 22). Seven Gay Texts: Biblical Passages Used to Condemn Homosexuality. Sage Journals. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146107915577097?journalCode=btba 

Squires, J. T. (2021, November 14). Clobbering the clobber passages. An Informed Faith. https://johntsquires.com/2021/08/08/clobbering-the-clobber-passages/ 

Rogers, J. (2009). Jesus, the Bible, and homosexuality: Explode the myths, heal the Church. Westminster John Knox Press.

Kraus, Kelly. “Queer Theology: Reclaiming Christianity for the LGBT Community .” Digitalcommons.Chapman.Edu, Sept. 2014, digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=e-Research.

Younes, Micheal. “ENGAGING ROMANS: AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF ROMANS ENGAGING ROMANS: AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF ROMANS 1:26–27 1:26–27.” John Carroll University, 28 July 2017, collected.jcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=mastersessays.

Boswell, John Eastburn. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. The University of Chicago Press, 1980.

“Oppression Created in Translation: How the Bible Is Used and Misued.” Duke, sites.duke.edu/biblicalmistranslation/homosexuality/. Accessed 17 May 2024.

Ramos, Gabriel. “On Homosexuality in the New Testament.” Sites.Nd.Edu.

Bailey, Kenneth E. “‘The Parable of the Good Samaritan,’ Chap. 22.” Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospel, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 2008.

Jennings, Theodore W. The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament. Pilgrim Press, 2003.

Hester, J. D. (2005). Eunuchs and the Postgender Jesus: Matthew 19.12 and Transgressive Sexualities. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 28(1), 13-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X05057772

Horner, Tom. Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times. The Westminster Press, 1978.

McNeill, John J. The Church and the Homosexual. Beacon Press, 1993.

Schrock, Dan. “From Exclusion to Inclusion: Eunuchs in the Bible.” Berkeyavenue.Org, 2 Sept. 2018.

Burke, Sean D. Queering the Ethiopian Eunuch Strategies of Ambiguity in Acts. Fortress Press, 2013.

Rae, Noel. “How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery.” Time, Time, 23 Feb. 2018, time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/.

Hollifield , Zachary C. “OBEDIENT TO GOD: CHRISTIAN JUSTIFICATIONS FOR SLAVERY IN THE ANTEBELLUM SOUTH.” Mcstor.Library.Milligan.Edu, 8 Apr. 2016.

Williams, Robert. Just as I Am: A Practical Guide to Being out, Proud, and Christian. HarperPerennial, 1993.