For LGBTQIA+ and faith
Hello Rabbi Michi!
I am a religious trans woman (I don’t come from a religious home, if that matters)
I contacted you because I know you’re quite open about the subject.
Isn’t this a contradiction with the commandment not to wear, or the prohibition of castration?
I guess an Orthodox life would not be easy to maintain.
And in general, what is the opinion of the halakha on the subject (I haven’t found many sources on the subject, because it’s quite new)?
Am I not considered a man yet, according to Jewish law?
Hello Rabbi. This is a very difficult question, as there are no clear halachic sources from which to draw a conclusion.
The question is whether the laws that distinguish between men and women depend on sex or gender. In the past, the perception was that they necessarily go together, and even today, the jurists assume this. But in my opinion, it is really unclear, and there is room for argument that at least some of the laws depend on gender and not sex.
If this is so, there is room for argument that you are not prohibited from wearing women’s clothing. If this is not done for the sake of promiscuity but out of an authentic feeling, there is room for leniency, at least according to the opinion of some rabbis. Regarding the prohibition of castration, this seems more difficult to me. Ostensibly, it depends on sex and not gender, since this is your ability to procreate. This cannot be changed for the time being (and even if it were possible, it is highly doubtful whether this would not pose a problem with castration). There is a consideration of “tema dakra”, if in any case you will not give birth to children as a man (is this really the case?) So ostensibly castration is not problematic, but according to halakha we do not require a taema dakra and therefore it is difficult to permit on this basis.
As mentioned, I have no clear halachic way to answer this question, as I do not know of a clear source of authority that is decisive in it. What we are left with are our own opinions. My opinion tends to what I wrote above: women’s clothing is permissible, but castration is very difficult for me to permit (although, as mentioned, I am not sure about this either).
Isn't it clear that the halakhic woman means a biological woman?
There was then a complete identity between the two (gender woman and biological woman), or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there were no “two” there was only biological sex. And the new sociological separation that creates a group that gives an umbrella to people with characteristics that are usually identified with biological women, is not relevant to the halakhic woman at all.
Is there an ontological connection between trans people and biological women?
It is not clear to me at all. On the contrary, the explanation suggests that a woman in halakhah is determined by gender and not by sex, after all, what is the point of tying halakhic things to a physiological structure? It is much more reasonable to tie them to the mental structure, which is more essential. Even in the signs of maturity that are tied to physiology, it is quite clear that this is only a sign of the essential signs (which are difficult to examine and give sharp criteria for).
Although in the past, the sages did not think that there was such a distinction, and it was clear to them that sex and gender go together. But in the last generation, the understanding has developed that this is not so. Sometimes there is a separation between sex and gender (see column 504). Therefore, now the question arises on what all law really depended on in the past, sex or gender.
This is a halakhic change similar to what the Meiri said in relation to the Gentiles. In the past, it was assumed that every Gentile was wicked and practiced עז. Over the generations, a distinction was created between the parameters, and there were Gentiles who did not practice עז and were not wicked. Now we must discuss whether the halakhic attitude towards the Gentiles depended on their Gentileness or their wickedness. It was possible to ask this even then, but as long as there was no division, the question did not arise.
Similarly, the laws of customs. Originally, the custom was determined by the place. However, in the ancient world, which was much less dynamic than our world, the custom of the fathers and the custom of the place were the same. People usually lived where their ancestors lived. In the new, more dynamic world, there has been a division and the place is no longer so fixed. If so, the custom of the fathers no longer really coincides with the custom of the place. Therefore, a halakhic dynamic was created in which the custom of the place was replaced by the custom of the fathers. Rabbi Ovadia claimed that everyone should act according to the custom of the place (Etra Damran), but the fact is that this was not accepted. Everyone acts according to the custom of their ancestors (Ashkenazim and Sephardim). And so it is with the law of not gathering together, which prohibits (in simple terms from the Torah) the existence of two synagogues in one city, and no one today would think of obeying it. The city as a place has become an irrelevant parameter. For the same reason I argued that it is possible to join a minyan on Zoom. Physical geography is no longer significant. The (virtual) site has replaced the (physical) place.
The changing reality requires a different application of the ancient laws. Just like in the swimsuit example.
Why did you write about "not wearing" not being a requirement of the Tema Dekra? There is an explicit prohibition on a man wearing women's clothing, and you are pouring into the word a content that did not exist at the time, according to your belief that the Torah would not attach laws to a physiological structure. But the reality is that it did. There could be many reasons for this: perhaps dressing according to gender and not according to sex is in itself a violation. Perhaps it does not recognize the possibility that there is a difference, that is: a person's inner feeling has no nefk'm regarding how to treat him. Perhaps, as Maimonides said, the Torah knew that the mitzvah would not be "correct" for a negligible percentage of the population, but that is the case for many mitzvahs.
But even before that, there is an incorrect assumption here. The content of the words "man" and "woman" did not change, except for a small minority of the population. The majority of the population does recognize the right of an adult to do as they please, but they will usually treat a person based on their biological sex (not to their face so as not to offend, but they will not form a relationship with them, for example). This is not the case with the Gentiles, where the reality has truly changed, nor with the website (where I disagree with your conclusion but understand the explanation).
Absolutely not. The question is who the woman is about, not what the purpose of the prohibition is. The Torah does indeed prohibit a man from wearing women's clothing, the question is who the ’man’ is about whom the Torah is speaking. You assume that it linked this to a physiological structure, and I don't know where you get it when the explanation says the opposite. Note that I am not changing anything in the commandment, but only interpreting its meaning in general.
The content of the words you are talking about deals with terms (=words in a language), while I am talking about concepts (what the words describe). Unlike words, the meaning of concepts can be different even if the majority of the public is not aware of it and does not agree with it. If the truth is that a woman is a matter of gender and not of sex, what do I care if the majority of the public does not think so? And if later the majority of the public does think so, then will the halakha change? By the way, I am also not sure that you are factually correct. I did not check. But as stated, it does not matter.
Assuming you are right, would it be wrong for him/her to be forbidden to wear men's clothes because you don't wear them?
Absolutely. But I wrote that I am not adamant about this and the situation is uncertain for me. Therefore, there is room to ease or make it worse this way or that.
Assuming that gender is what determines why the term "androgynous" is used, we will simply examine which gender they feel they belong to and thus determine whether they are a man or a woman.
Strange question. Until you get to tomtom and androgynous, ask why we even go by biological signs to determine whether it is a man or a woman. But beyond that, I wrote that there are laws regarding which sex is the determining factor, not gender. And besides, it is clear that the Sages did not see it that way. I am talking about changes in perception, and I am not claiming that the Sages thought that way. Was it for a reason that I brought up the examples above of changes in halakha?
If I understood correctly, you explained that the biological signs indicate mental maturity and something substantial, and this is quite reasonable (you can also ask there what happens to someone who has signs but is still mentally small?).
I ask about a tomtom since it is likely that they will feel a belonging to one of the genders (or do they feel a belonging to both genders together?) And so their law should be determined according to their affiliation?
Let's say about the fact that they cannot fulfill other obligations because in a state of doubt
I understood that you did not intend to disagree with Chazal, you only said that in their time they did not know such a reality, but if you had asked them, they would probably have something to say
Indeed, but still these are just signs. My argument is that it is possible that the physiological signs of masculinity or femininity are also just signs of the true/essential thing.
I answered your question about tomtom and androgynous.
I intend to tell the truth. Whether or not the sages disagree with this is not really interesting. When you are unaware of such a distinction, you have no position on it. The question of what they would say if they knew the current information is not defined. If they knew the current information, they would not be sages but people of our generation. The question is what is true for the current generation and not what Rav Ashi or Maimonides would say today.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
