But why should cross-dressing be seen in such terms? Many commentators have assumed a link with either homosexuality or pagan religion. This is possible, but there is nothing in the immediate context to suggest such a connection. It is more likely, then, that “the wording of the legislation goes beyond a cult setting to include any and all circumstances of men dressing like women and vice versa.”58 Therefore, the nineteenth-century German commentators, Carl Keil and Franz Delitzsch, were right to conclude:
The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to oppose idolatrous practices … but to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of the sexes which was established by the creation of man and woman, and in relation to which Israel was not to sin.59
Consequently, as Peter Harland explains: “To dress after the manner of the opposite sex was to infringe the natural order of creation which divided humanity into male and female. That distinction was fundamental to human existence and could not be blurred in any way.”60 This is why the Lord regarded such blurring as an “abomination.”
But what is the relevance of this text to new covenant Christians living in the twenty-first century? While care is needed in applying old covenant commands to later situations, the abiding ethical principles behind them can be readily discerned. It is not, then, as some have claimed, “doing a disservice to reasonable hermeneutics” to apply this verse to contemporary forms of transvestitism, certainly not to those who claim to be Christians.61 Now as then, “this injunction seeks to preserve the order built into creation, specifically the fundamental distinction between male and female. For a person to wear anything associated with the opposite gender confuses one’s sexual identity and blurs established boundaries.”62 This does not mean that all men (or all women) must dress alike, or that ‘unisex’ items of clothing (like T-shirts or jeans) are inherently problematic. But it does warn against intentional cross-dressing, particularly for the purpose of bending or disguising one’s true gender.
(ii) The second of the behaviors that Scripture censures is sexual effeminacy; that is, a man playing the part of a woman (by being the ‘receiver’) in homosexual intercourse. Those who engage in such a practice, and are finally unrepentant, are listed among those who will be excluded from the kingdom of God:
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakoi), nor homosexuals (arsenokoitai), 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10, NASB)
Like his sexual ethics generally, the apostle Paul’s assessment of homosexual behavior derives from the absolute prohibitions found in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and so (like Deut 22:5) is ultimately grounded in the creation theology of Genesis 1-3.63 His use of the two distinct terms highlighted above reveals that he is censuring all who participate in homosexual acts – whether actively or passively.64 His reference to the malokos (“soft man”), therefore, is not aimed at victims of exploitative relationships or homosexual rape (as some have suggested), but at any man who actively feminizes himself by being sodomized.65
Self-feminization for the purposes of homosexual sex is thus unambiguously condemned by Paul. However, it is also likely that he would be equally troubled by “those who engage in a process of feminization to erase further their masculine appearance and manner.”66 So if the practice of cross-dressing remains problematic (as Deuteronomy 22:5 indicates), how much more serious is surgical transitioning? Furthermore, even if done without homosexual intent, such feminization often has a way of leading to homosexual activity – particularly as many transsexuals, tragically, are driven to ‘sex work’ in order to pay for SRS and continued CHT.67
(iii) The third of the behaviors that the Bible opposes is gender ambiguity; that is, the attempt to blur the lines between male and female by one’s gender expression. This is Paul’s chief concern in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and why he says:
4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved …13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. (1 Cor. 11:4-5, 13-15, NIV)
Although there are a number of difficulties and obscurities in the passage in which these verses appear,68 what is clear is that Paul desires both men and women in general, and husbands and wives in particular, to wholeheartedly embrace and unambiguously express the gender distinctions with which we have been created, rather than to deny, diminish or disguise them.69 This explains why he “expresses no less disquiet (probably indeed more) about men whose style is effeminate with possible hints of a quasihomsexual blurring of male gender than about women who likewise reject the use of signals of respectable and respected gender distinctiveness.”70