Have you heard about the changes in New York City's birth certificates? In September, NYC released a new plan to allow transgenders to actually change the gender on their birth certificates without having to undergo surgery. They only need to show proof of taking steps to alter their gender.

This reminds me of a verse. Shocking, huh? Actually, the shocking part is which verse it reminds me of. It's a big can-of-worms verse. Can you guess? Here goes:

A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

Deuteronomy 22:5

Now, some people read this verse and get an immediate mental image (see photo at right), and that's as far as they allow the verse to take them. Yes, this verse does definitely teach that the differences between male and female should be reflected in our clothes*. We're also told in 1 Corinthians 11:14, that nature teaches us "that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him." But is it possible that God could be aiming at something closer to the heart than the intrinsic morality of fashion trends?

I must admit that I cannot read this verse without hearing how I believe Jesus would have addressed this verse at the Sermon on the Mount: "You have heard that it was said, 'A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.' But I say to you that every man who is effeminate, or makes his wife the head of his house, submitting to her leadership rather than leading her, or every woman who takes up arms of war, or works while her husband stays home, or who acts like Harriet Oleson, or teaches a man or exercises authority over a man has worn the other gender's garment and thus offended his or her Creator." (Okay, so Jesus might not have made a direct reference to Little House on the Prairie, but you catch my drift.)

It's easy to spot the sins of the transgenders. But aren't there some "transgender" tendencies among many Christians, as well? How about you?

* I would like to take a very brief moment to point out that "man's garment" is not defined. If you wanted to go totally "Biblical" and insist that Jewish culture was intrinsically holy, then a man's garment is one or two full length tunics and a cloak, which is easily distinguishable from the woman's garment of one or two full length tunics and a cloak. Obviously that would be a very difficult law to fulfill outside of the Middle East. I personally believe that you fulfill this by men shopping in the men's department and women shopping in the women's department. I have faced the accusation that I'm letting culture dictate my values. I'm not letting culture dictate my values. I'm applying my values to the culture. Those who would level that accusation should carefully consider if they are not letting culture dictate their values--a pre-1920s culture--and assuming that makes them holy.

Was that snarky?

UPDATE: I stand corrected. Yes, I was snarky on that last bit, so I've struck it out. I'm sorry if I offended anyone.
There's some good out of this: it let my wife point out to me that I have a "hang up" on other people's "hang ups." So, now I can deal with that log properly. You know, it doesn't feel good to find out you have a log, but it sure does feel good to get those logs out.