It's springtime, which means that Princeton University Press is having its annual 50% off spring sale. From May 4th through June 9th, you can get 50% off nearly every single print, e-book, and audiobook from Princeton University Press. Just go to press.prinston.edu to get 50% off incredible books like Disneyland and the Rise of Automation. And beyond belief, how evidence shows what really works.
There are so many fantastic books you can get an incredible deal on. Go to press.prinston.edu and use the code spring50. That's sp-r-i-n-g-50 at press.prinston.edu. This sale only lasts for a month, so go and get some books.
Hello. Thank you for joining us. We are proud to welcome you to our special series, Across the Rainbow, Brought to you by Brittle, where we talk about gender equality, its past, its present, and its future. On your host, Lee John Greco.
Today we're speaking with Professor S.J. Krasnow. They're an assistant professor of theology and religious studies at Rockhurst University in Missouri. Their article is The Legacy of Gender Ideology, Antitrans Legislation and Conservative Christianity's Ongoing Influence on US Law.
Professor Krasnow, thanks so much for speaking with us today. Thank you so much for having me. So you note in your article that when you looked at the recent anti-trans rhetoric and legislation in the US, that we've been here before, can you talk about how history is repeating itself here, particularly when it comes to Catholic ideology? Yeah, so what becomes evident in reading about the development of the concept of gender ideology in the fallism is that the current anti-transgender rhetoric that uses this terminology is an extension of the same conservative rhetoric used to counter feminist movements of the past.
Gender ideology is founded on ideas of gender essentialism, that is that there are essential and consistent characteristics of being a woman or a man that cannot change. Others writing on gender ideology and feminism have argued that the dominance of this kind of ideology has been used to resist feminism's push for gender equity and to maintain patriarchy as normative. This essentialism also takes for granted that gender is binary, that the only two options for gender are women or man. When gender ideology is extended to trans folks, it's used to argue that people can't ever really change their gender, whatever gender you're assigned at birth, typically based on sex.
That's your gender end of story. And you know, before I get into my next question, I think one basic question that maybe many of our listeners have and just people in general, especially from older generations, kind of struggle to deal with this concept of non-binary and what does that mean? It seems like a new concept for lots of folks. So can you just explain like, what does it mean to be non-binary?
What's this kind of third gender that people are talking about lately? Yeah, so non-binary is really expansive and almost means something different to each individual. So it becomes difficult to define it broadly, but I will try anyway, because that's how language works, right? We use what we've got, but it's ultimately imperfect.
So non-binary is used by people broadly to signify that they don't identify as man or woman. So acknowledging that the kind of normative way of understanding gender, at least in a Western context, is to think about man and woman. So if you're non-binary, you're acknowledging that binary as the norm and saying, I exist outside of it. That can mean that you don't identify either with the category of man or woman.
It can mean that you feel as though you're a mix of both. So it doesn't actually tell you anything conclusive about how people feel about those categories necessarily, but just that they do not identify as man or woman. So there's a little room for that definition, I guess, depending on the person. Exactly.
Gotcha. So we've talked a little bit about gender essentialism. You did your best to define what's non-binary. Let's talk about this concept of complementarianism.
Can you explain what that is exactly? Yeah, so complementarianism also assumes binary gender. It assumes that there are men and women and if they are different and fundamental and immutable ways. So therefore men and women have different but supposedly complementary roles to fulfill.
Proponents of complementarity have tried to present it as God-given and immutable, which implies that those who don't adhere to those roles are going against God. However, as I noted in the article, claims that complementarianism is eternal and God-given are undercut and researched by scholars like Mary Anne Case, who has shown the concept of complementarianism as actually an invention of the 20th century. You're right also that this concept broadly is not just in Catholicism or even Christianity. If you take the central question here of whether women and men should be treated equally or whether they should each have different roles, many religions have internal dialogue with debating those kinds of questions in the US, much of the rhetorical and political power of complementarianism has actually linked the Protestantism.
And Susan M. Shaw has traced some of this history showing that it became central to evangelical belief, starting in the late 1970s as a reactionary response to feminism's influence. As gender egalitarianism gains prominence, complementarianism was presented as a kind of alternative. So the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which describes itself as quote unquote, the flagship organization for complementarianism was established in the late 1980s with the goal of influencing evangelicals to adopt complementarianism in their homes, churches and schools.
So you've talked about this concept of complementarianism and how it's not just a Catholic belief that evangelicals have also used this. I'm wondering if evangelicals are better at using complementarianism as a political tool than Catholics are because Catholics typically in the US are not one unified voting block the way evangelicals are in the US. Yeah, I think like if by using it better, you're pointing to I think a really important piece about the unification within sort of a white evangelical voting block, which is really powerful voting block in the United States, and that there may be more diversity amongst Catholics about how they perceive these issues, whereas this has been a really powerful and when I say this, I mean this rhetoric about complementarianism, anti-LGBTQ rhetoric rooted in sort of this logic of protecting the family and protecting children, which most recently we're seeing an attack on transgender rights. But as I mentioned earlier, it's also been connected to combating feminism and also gay and lesbian rights historically.
So it's certainly an effective strategy at galvanizing white evangelicals, you know, historically and in the present. And I do think that that's why we continue to see it used in part because it seems to work. So that actually leads to my next question, which is who exactly is attacking transgender rights in the US and why do you think they frame their goals around protecting children and ensuring fairness? You kind of already mentioned how that's been a useful tactic in the past.
So wondering if you can just kind of elaborate on that a bit. Yeah, absolutely. So in the article, I'm primarily concerned with a segment of powerful political conservatives who are attacking trans rights, including those within organizations like the Heritage Foundation, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Policy Groups created by Focus on Family. I suspect there's some mix of folks who actually believe that transgender identity is quote unquote wrong and folks who are cynically latching onto this issue because of its utility for galvanizing conservative political engagement.
And of course, also those things aren't mutually exclusive. In one way, I think there's a straightforward reason why they frame their goals as about protecting children and ensuring fairness. Those are goals that sound good to many people on their face. But of course, that's not what the rhetoric and actions of these politicians actually accomplish.
But the strategy, as we said, has been successful in the past. You can think about in the 1970s, prominent conservative figures like Anita Bryant attacking gay and lesbian rights by claiming gay and lesbian people were afraid to children. Claims about protecting children have been influential, impassing anti LGBTQ state laws in the past. And today, conservatives seem to be finding some success, including that children are being pressured to identify as transgender or in referring to children having access to hormone blockers or other interventions as child abuse.
The reality is this legislation endangers trans children and excludes trans people, primarily trans girls and women from playing on women's sports teams. And actually, even when anti trans bills fail, the mere existence of the bills and the rhetoric that surrounds them has been demonstrated to have negative impacts on the mental health of trans people. So that one side of it, that ensuring fairness side, which you had mentioned has been employed when it comes to women's sports, that seems to explain some of the ADF, this alliance defending freedom groups, sort of strange political bedvows that they have, you mentioned that they've allied with quote, radical feminists. How did that happen?
So this isn't the first time that there's been this kind of alignment between conservatives and a segment of feminists. For example, we've aligned to fight things like pornography and sex work. But with regard to attacking trans rights, it's been at least since 2016 that those feminists often referred to as trans exclusionary radical feminists or TERFs began working alongside conservatives. And that began in response to the Obama administration's guidance for Title IX protections for transgender students in schools.
These feminists are also drawn to the logic of essentialism, wanting to argue that trans women are not really women because sex is immutable and that the pursuit of trans rights will erase protections for non transgender women. It's really fascinating to dig into this rhetoric where it comes from. And I guess where we're headed today. Professor Krasnow, thank you so much for speaking with us.
It's been a pleasure. Thank you. Professor S.J. Krasnow, they are author of the legacy of gender ideology, anti trans legislation and conservative Christianity's ongoing influence on US law.
You are listening to the Humanities Matter podcast. You can find more podcast episodes on the Apple podcast, Spotify and Google podcast.