Mike Ensley is in his mid-twenties, and is listed as the assistant for the Exodus International’s Exodus Youth department. Ensley, like many working for Exodus International, has a habit of writing or talking about things which are outside of his expertise and not providing any references. His latest piece for Exodus Youth Voice, entitled Gender & Sexuality: Fluid Or Solid, follows in this vein. The piece is full of some people say‘s and they say‘s, as well as analogies without any provided basis in fact. Here’s an excerpt:
A lot of people say it’s dangerous to pursue counseling to help bring your sexual identity in line with your faith and the life you want, because they say we’re “born that way.” But, in the next breath they will say it’s safe and okay for some kids to take hormone-altering drugs and even go under the knife to change the way they were born, just because they’re confused.
Which do you think is more likely: that God accidentally puts the souls of men in female bodies (and vice versa), or that our understanding of our gender is just one of the many paths human beings can get lost on?
Maybe you feel like you fit in more with people of the opposite sex than the same. Perhaps you’ve considered that you are someone of the opposite sex, or that you should have been. You might be unsure exactly where you fit in.
You don’t need a new body, and you don’t need to invent a new gender for yourself because God really doesn’t make mistakes. There is great diversity within the male and female genders, but the truth is that you don’t need to go outside them to find you.
I’ll just pick two of Ensley’s points in this article to demonstrate how under-referenced and under-researched this article is. These will be used to show that Ensley doesn’t seem knowledgeable enough about transgender issues to speak as a subject matter expert — I’m basically pointing out that he’s arguing from a position as a false authority on gender and transgender issues.
Point 1.The Harry Benjamin Standards Of Care has the intervention guidelines for transsexual adolescents. In the article Ensley wrote “…in the next breath they will say it’s safe and okay for some kids to take hormone-altering drugs and even go under the knife to change the way they were born, just because they’re confused.” What the gatekeeping “they” actually say in the Harry Benjamin Standards Of Care is:
Physical Interventions. Before any physical intervention is considered, extensive exploration of psychological, family and social issues should be undertaken. Physical interventions should be addressed in the context of adolescent development. Adolescents’ gender identity development can rapidly and unexpectedly evolve. An adolescent shift toward gender conformity can occur primarily to please the family, and may not persist or reflect a permanent change in gender identity. Identity beliefs in adolescents may become firmly held and strongly expressed, giving a false impression of irreversibility; more fluidity may return at a later stage. For these reasons, irreversible physical interventions should be delayed as long as is clinically appropriate. Pressure for physical interventions because of an adolescent’s level of distress can be great and in such circumstances a referral to a child and adolescent multi-disciplinary specialty service should be considered, in locations where these exist.
Physical interventions fall into three categories or stages:
1. Fully reversible interventions. These involve the use of LHRH agonists or medroxyprogesterone to suppress estrogen or testosterone production, and consequently to delay the physical changes of puberty.
2. Partially reversible interventions. These include hormonal interventions that masculinize or feminize the body, such as administration of testosterone to biologic females and estrogen to biologic males. Reversal may involve surgical intervention.
3. Irreversible interventions. These are surgical procedures.A staged process is recommended to keep options open through the first two stages. Moving from one state to another should not occur until there has been adequate time for the young person and his/her family to assimilate fully the effects of earlier interventions.
Fully Reversible Interventions. Adolescents may be eligible for puberty-delaying hormones as soon as pubertal changes have begun. In order for the adolescent and his or her parents to make an informed decision about pubertal delay, it is recommended that the adolescent experience the onset of puberty in his or her biologic sex, at least to Tanner Stage Two. If for clinical reasons it is thought to be in the patient’s interest to intervene earlier, this must be managed with pediatric endocrinological advice and more than one psychiatric opinion.
Two goals justify this intervention: a) to gain time to further explore the gender identity and other developmental issues in psychotherapy; and b) to make passing easier if the adolescent continues to pursue sex and gender change. In order to provide puberty delaying hormones to an adolescent, the following criteria must be met:
1. throughout childhood the adolescent has demonstrated an intense pattern of cross-sex and cross-gender identity and aversion to expected gender role behaviors;
2. sex and gender discomfort has significantly increased with the onset of puberty;
3. the family consents and participates in the therapy.…
Partially Reversible Interventions. Adolescents may be eligible to begin masculinizing or feminizing hormone therapy as early as age 16, preferably with parental consent. In many countries 16-year olds are legal adults for medical decision making, and do not require parental consent.
Mental health professional involvement is an eligibility requirement for triadic therapy during adolescence. For the implementation of the real-life experience or hormone therapy, the mental health professional should be involved with the patient and family for a minimum of six months.
While the number of sessions during this six-month period rests upon the clinician’s judgment…
Irreversible Interventions. Any surgical intervention should not be carried out prior to adulthood, or prior to a real-life experience of at least two years in the gender role of the sex with which the adolescent identifies. The threshold of 18 should be seen as an eligibility criterion and not an indication in itself for active intervention.
My pardons for how long and detailed that excerpt is. But here is the point of that long, detailed excerpt: The gatekeeping “they” are definitely not saying “…in the next breath they will say it’s safe and okay for some kids to take hormone-altering drugs and even go under the knife to change the way they were born, just because they’re confused.” On the contrary, “they” urge “…irreversible physical interventions should be delayed as long as is clinically appropriate” because ” [i]dentity beliefs in adolescents may become firmly held and strongly expressed, giving a false impression of irreversibility; more fluidity may return at a later stage.” “They” are actually stating the opposite of what Ensley indicates “they” believe.
Point 2. Ensley poses the question “Which do you think is more likely: that God accidentally puts the souls of men in female bodies (and vice versa), or that our understanding of our gender is just one of the many paths human beings can get lost on?” He later answers his rhetorical question by stating “You don’t need a new body, and you don’t need to invent a new gender for yourself because God really doesn’t make mistakes. There is great diversity within the male and female genders, but the truth is that you don’t need to go outside them to find you.” The problem with this rhetorical question and answer is that Christ specifically mentions that some need to modify their bodies for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, and the prophet Isaiah said of those whose genitalia weren’t perfect enough to enter the temple that “…their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.”
John Boswell, in the book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality offers us an understanding of how ancient people in Rome, Greece, Europe and the Jewish states viewed sexuality. Homosexuality, intersexuality, and transsexuality were, to the ancient mind inter-related and merely degrees of a spectrum. Ancient people would view an effeminate personality to be the “nature” of an individual in the same way as they would view the “nature” of a mixed genital (intersex) body. The language regarding intersex, transgender and homosexual people is frequently interchangeable in ancient cultures; all such people fall under the common Biblical terms for eunuch. These days, we tend to think eunuchs are men whose testicles have been removed, but that is a very incomplete interpretation of the term. (Online reference: here.)
But even if Ensley doesn’t quite agree with Boswell, what we do know is what Christ said about eunuchs in Matthew 19:12:
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
As used by Christ, at a minimum the term eunuch covered castrated males and those with intersex genitalia. Ensley’s statement of…
You don’t need a new body, and you don’t need to invent a new gender for yourself because God really doesn’t make mistakes. There is great diversity within the male and female genders, but the truth is that you don’t need to go outside them to find you.
…doesn’t allow for those who need to become eunuchs — If it were only about their non-mistake bodies, why would some make themselves eunuchs “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake?”
Exodus Youth’s Welcome page states:
Exodus Youth believes there are real answers to these questions found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. God wants to show us His plan for our lives. He loves us and wants to walk with us as we pursue healing and freedom in Him.
Ensley didn’t phrase his rhetorical question and answer in a manner that indicated there are scriptures that talk about eunuchs, and that eunuchs — however one may define them — don’t quite fit into Ensley’s allusions that a cross-gender identity is sinful:
Many are considering that perhaps the binary (two-part) concept of male and female is too rigid. After all, there are so many people who grow up never feeling like they fit into either of the stereotypical gender roles presented to them by society. Some believe that this is evidence that there are other sexes besides male and female, and society should recognize and promote them
But is this concept of fluid gender and sexuality for real? The thoughts, emotions and urges we experience are certainly real, but are we coming to the right conclusions about them? One thing that we can all agree on is that gender and sexuality are a beautiful and very important part of who we are.
Whenever an idea gets revolutionized in our culture, I think there’s always something good behind it; some wrong that needs to be made right. However, people have a bad habit of swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction, and ending up with a mistake that’s as bad as or worse than what they were trying to change in the first place.
I think there’s something to this “fluidity” thing. We should all carefully consider what’s true and beneficial—and what’s going too far.
Summing up, apparently Ensley doesn’t know what the The World Professional Association For Transgender Health stated about the treatment of transgender youth in the Harry Benjamin Standards Of Care because he misstated what “they” say, and apparently Ensley doesn’t know what Christ was quoted in the Bible as saying about modifying genitalia in Matthew 19:12 because he didn’t consider gender may have something to do with why some might need to make themselves eunuchs “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” By these two key points alone it’s clear to me that Exodus International again has placed their reliance on an employee, this time Mike Ensley, who does not know enough about transgender issues to function as an authority on the subject.
—
David Roberts and Timothy Kincaid contributed to this article.
Not to mention that he is ignorant of the scriptures he uses to bash: elsewhere in the Gospel, in Matt 22:23 Jesus answered Sadducees (the legalists of the day) on this very point, indicating that the resurrected body (and soul) have no gender, but are “like the angels in heaven.” The idea that there is a male soul as opposed to a female soul is heretical.
I might also add that Mr. Ensley seems ignorant about the biological process of fetal development, in which all humans begin in the same form, the female, and then are changed by the hormones and other chemicals manufactured according to the coding of our genes. There are any number of potential “mistakes” that can be made during these multiple processes, and being intersexed is only one of them. There are those with fragile X syndrome, for instance, who are outwardly male, but have two X chromosones in addition to their Y chromosone, with a resulting slew of common medical problems.
And if you branch out beyond mere fetal sexual development, there are any number of other genetic and biological “mistakes” that can occur during fertilization and development, but still result in humans being born. Mr. Ensley states that God does not make mistakes, but then how would he classify any of these people? Either they are mistakes, and therefore God is not as powerful as Mr. Ensley might believe, or they are part of the design of nature, which derives from God.
And if we know that the “normal” process of human fetal development can result in intersexed people, those who are physically and even genetically in between the two genders, why is it such a stretch that there might be other “mistakes” during that process resulting in transgender or homosexual humans? We are all derived from one man and one woman, as the Christian Right is always quick to point out, so why would it be shocking that some of us are more of a mixture of those than others?
It’s rather sad to see these groups blindly using the same flawed logic to explain away transgender identity that they apply to sexual identity issues.
Fundamentally, their arguments rest upon the assertion that the experiences and feelings of a group of people that they do not understand (at all!) are invalid.
When someone “turns away” under their tutelage, the claim that “change is possible” is made, falsely implying that what is true for one is inductively true for all. (Which, is naturally, quite false – as the sheer diversity of nature itself demonstrates so clearly)
I’d be tempted to say it was sad as well, except…well like everyone else we hear from Exodus, Mr. Ensley prefers to lie than tell the truth. They know it is difficult to prove a negative, so they use lies and misinformation to force us into a barely defensible position.
Autumn does a good job showing how he is lying. Thank you for the hard work Autumn! It’s too bad it’s gotten to this point, but we need to start calling them liars to their faces like this a lot more often.
People could spend 5 minutes reading the Wikipedia article on intersexuality and end up more informed than they’d be after reading Mike’s article here. Sex can be ambiguous and not fit into a nice dichotomous choice for a surprisingly large number of people, to say nothing of gender.
And as someone else pointed out, the idea that there are inherently male and female souls as sex and gender is understood on earth is not supported by scripture. Jesus was actually pretty direct on that topic.
People could spend 5 minutes reading the Wikipedia article on intersexuality and end up more informed than they’d be after reading Mike’s article here.
To be fair, that Wikipedia article needs work badly. But Ensley certainly has no business speaking on this subject as though he was an authority, and certainly not without some references to genuine, authoritative sources that back up his suppositions.
On the comment about the female gender being the default gender….
This may not be as true as once assumed. Recently there was a study which looked at men with the XX karotype and the findings MIGHT challenge that notion.
With that said, there has been more than enough evidence showing that a spike of androgens during pregnancy can have a huge impact on the child in both gendered behavior and outward biological appearances. Plus the studies looking at the bed cell nucleus is a great argument that transsexualism (and perhaps the less persistent forms of transgenderism) is biological in nature and that the outward expression is psychosociological. Psychoneuroendocrinological studies have also been pretty interesting. But there is still a long way to go.
The truth is that the binary gender system is a sociological construction and the gender spectrum fluctuates depending on the host culture in any given area.
A spike in estrogenic, pseudo-estrogenic, or estrogenic mimics, can similarly influence sexual di-morphism.
In my case DES, which was prescribed routinely between 1946 and the early 70’s to mothers as an anti-miscarriage medication has been demonstrated to have a clearly disruptive effect on the biological and psycho-sexual development of laboratory animals. The implications for human-foetal development are clear.
The resources for this can be found by contacting https://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/des-sons/
Mike’s first People Say, I think, sums up the biggest problem for Exodus spokespeople: “A lot of people say it’s dangerous to pursue counseling to help bring your sexual identity in line with your faith and the life you want, because they say we’re ‘born that way.'”
Well, actually, what “alot of people say” is that it’s dangerous to pursue counseling with people not qualified to do that counseling, to help “bring your sexual identity in line with your faith”. Those four additional qualifying words make all the difference, since the problem is not the counseling, it’s the counselors who assume the premise of being an authority without having the proper knowledge inherent in that authority.
Judging by the knowledge Mike obviously lacks, I’d have to say that he really shouldn’t be speaking to teens about sexuality or gender identity. He’s one of the people for whom those four qualifying words are what divides the dangerous from the appropriate.
What I don’t think Mike Ensley understands is personal freedom. Whether people are trangendered due to biological reasons or some other reason or combination of reasons really should not matter. The right of the individual to choose their own path in this world is the most important.
If Mike’s path involves suppressing his homosexuality and trying to live his life as he thinks God would want him, more power to him.
But the opposite is also true: Mike needs to learn how to respect the paths that others follow.
He would be better off trying to live the best life he can live for himself, rather than trying to denigrate homosexuals, transexuals, bisexuals, the intersexed or anyone else who hasn’t chosen to follow Mike’s path.
I love this thread. And Robis, you make an excellent point.
Ensley is one of many people who appointed themselves a position, from which they know nothing and are ignorant and incoherent.
But I would ask Ensley, what has one’s gender have to do with being a skilled and good person?
Women or men, or in between have much to offer and teach.
So what’s so important about gender and what it is for identifying a decent, talented and compassionate human being?
Because when it’s all said and done, being a good person and decent to one another is what it’s about, not what kind of sexual organs you have or where they are.
And who asked Ensley for his ignorant and uninformed opinion anyway?
Did the LGBT community?
Didn’t think so.
Mike’s first People Say, I think, sums up the biggest problem for Exodus spokespeople: “A lot of people say it’s dangerous to pursue counseling to help bring your sexual identity in line with your faith and the life you want, because they say we’re ‘born that way.'”
Thanks for bringing that up Robis, it was something I noticed yesterday as well. I don’t know of many people who have claimed “reparative therapy” is dangerous, per se, although certainly many major medical groups have recommended against such “treatment” because of ethical concerns, as well as concerns about possible damage to the patient when the likely failure occurs.
But if you look at sites like this, Mike and his fellow bloggers have been pretty clear that they have no problem with individuals who for religious want to repress their sexuality, and live celibately or only express their opposite-sex attractions (if bisexual). The problem is when those individuals, and others who use their stories, argue that their example 1) proves a biological change has occurred – with no resulting evidence – and 2) demonstrates why ALL homosexual people should be denied full participation in society.
In fact, I would think a psychologist or psychiatrist who wanted to follow the guidelines on reparative therapy could nonetheless provide ethical counseling to an individual who wanted to remain celibate for religious reasons, as long as both parties in the therapy were clear about the extremely minimal possibility of any change in the patient’s sexual orientation.
CPT_Doom,
Timothy Kincaid had a wonderful article posted on The Advocate’s website entitled “Ex-gay” lies and God’s love. One line that caught my attention was…
I believe they start from that supposition where being LGBT and Christian are non-compatible because “gay is sinful.” Mike Ensley seems to have accepted this basic postulation that identifying as gay and/or having sex with someone of the same sex is sinful, and appears not to have done much research past this postulation to actually validate or not validate the rest of his belief system.
Mike Ensley’s qualifications???
He has none, in any meaningful sense, for us here, about understanding sexuality.
For the anti-gay crowd buying the Exodus(c) product he is, however, “very qualified”.
This is based on one simple false reframing and conflation of unrelated issues:
And sorry Regan, but Mike Ensley is not self-appointed (completely agree with the Robis comment BTW).
Someone else appointed him. After a job interview. Who appointed him to talk on these subjects, and more the point why, is the great unanswered question…
I mean, what’s ultimately the public point of him — or the others?
Grandale,
Yeah, I read the piece you just quoted. But you left out a few words.
grantdale,
I think you touch on an important issue. It is not just that Mike is spouting off without any knowledge, research, understanding or compassion.
The important issue is that he is doing so at the behest and on the payroll of an organization that does so for a particular political purpose. His efforts are not saving souls or preaching God’s grace or mercy – or forgiveness, for that matter. His efforts are to drive culture and effect law.
Why?