Taylor Perritt

Honors Core I

Writing Sample

Investigating the Influence of Christian Morality on Interpretation of Sexuality and Gender

The extensive influence that Christianity exacts in Western thought is evident in society’s

moral systems, particularly regarding sexuality and gender. From the philosophical texts of

Descartes and St. Augustine, to the social and political constructs of post-modernity, the roots of

Western thought are inseparably intertwined in Christian values and morality. The increasing

relevance of sexuality to the individual’s identity, with an almost soul-like significance,

demonstrates how Christian morals have historically, and currently still, impact the societal view

and interpretation of sexuality as an unambiguous and typological concept. Not only is it

important to investigate both the implicit and explicit ways in which Christian morality is

embedded into societal beliefs about sexuality and gender, but it is necessary to consider how

these moral systems play into larger issues like the biopolitics of abortion laws and transgender

rights or the violent attitude towards those who deviate from the sex/gender systems founded on

Christian typologies of sexuality and gender. The Christian-based moral systems of Western

society enforce the idea that sex and gender are typological concepts which should conform to

societal norms; however, the works of Weeks and Mock, supported by Nietzsche’s philosophical

thought, challenge these moral systems by discussing sex and gender as fluid, imaginary

concepts which exist on a spectrum.

1
 The essentialist perspective on sexuality and gender that has dominated Western thought

for much of history oversimplifies and disregards many of the complexities of sexuality and

gender identity. Not only does essentialism play into the Christian interpretation of sex/gender

systems as unchanging, universal, and grounded in appeals to god and nature, but it is

deterministic and fails to consider the social and historical foundations of sex and gender

(Weeks). Essentialism is a flawed and out of date method for thinking about sexuality, yet it has

branded sexuality as a naturalistic and biologically driven concept, and this is how society at

large still perceives sexuality and gender. In this sense, the separation of sexuality into

heterosexuality and homosexuality is a great oversimplification of human sexual desire and

preference. This separation also encourages the typological view of Christian moral systems

which hold that sexuality can be defined by specific and clear-cut categories, when realistically,

these morals, as described by Nietzsche, often “generalize where generalization is not

authorised” (Nietzsche 369-370). Sexuality, as a historical and social construct, is best portrayed

on a spectrum as a way of demonstrating the complexities of sexual orientation and the fluidity

of sexuality depending on environment and situational placement. In essence, sexuality and

gender are not “natural” concepts but rather they are manmade historical and social concepts

which align with Christian morality to confine “natural” sexuality to an unjustly narrow

definition of heterosexuality and cis gender identity.

The Christian moral system restricts the individual in a variety of ways yet is appealing

because of its effective return of emotional gain and infinite security; however, this return comes

at the denial of certain “inappropriate” or “immoral” instincts including deviations from the

norm regarding sexuality and gender. Pascal’s Wager, proposed by French philosopher Blaise

Pascal in the 17th century, is a concept which explains the benefits and consequences of

2
choosing to believe or not believe in god. According to Pascal’s Wager, it is better to believe in

god and be religious rather than not because an individual who believes in god will have both

finite and infinite security, whereas the individual who does not believe, only has finite security

and risks eternal damnation (Pojman). However, this concept has been heavily criticized, and

while most would prefer to have eternal security, the denial of instinct and loss of free-will that

come with religion should be considered. Nietzsche’s argument asserts that denying the

fundamental animal instincts that humans possess, in exchange for culture and in order to be

obedient to arbitrary authorities, is one of the most harmful things to man (Nietzsche). Not only

must man deny his instincts, but the herd mentality which moral systems create strips man of his

free-will in thought and actions as well. Further, if god does not exist, and man chooses to

believe in a god, then he has given up his instincts and free will with no positive consequences or

assured eternal security.

Not only do the potential eternal benefits fuel the acceptance of Christian-based morality,

but fear is another big factor which drives society to reject supposedly abnormal expressions of

sexuality and gender. Deviation from the accepted typology of heterosexuality is dangerous to

society and Christian morality because it challenges society's preconceived notions about

acceptable sexuality and gender identification. Nietzsche argues that the moral perspective is

founded around “how much or how little dangerousness to the community or to equality is

contained in an opinion, in a condition” and in a variety of other concepts (Nietzsche 372). This

idea is evident in Janet Mock’s personal experiences as a transgender woman in Western society

as described in her book, Redefining Realness. In her book, Mock consistently deals with

“intolerance and ignorance” as well as teasing from classmates, demonstrating the mechanisms

of rejecting Mock’s gender identity which scares and confuses them because it is different from

3
the societal norms imposed by Christian moral systems (Mock 194). Mock also faces intolerance

when she is rejected by Adrian, who is adamantly states that he is “not like that…. not gay,” after

she explains that she is a trans woman; this rejection stems from Adrian’s fear of his own

heterosexuality being challenged by sexual attraction that does not conform with Western,

Christian morality (Mock 160). Mock faces a plethora of other instances of ignorance,

intolerance, violence, and judgement, many of which arise from the fear of facing Mock’s

“unnatural” gender identification and the other questions and thinking that it inspires against

Christian morality and societal norms. Considering or dealing with sexual deviation from the

societal norms and the widely accepted societal morals, inspires fear in many because sexuality

is so closely related to identity and the soul that it leads to an overall questioning of an

individual’s identity that strays from the Christian-based morals that implicitly influence modern

Western thought.

Christianity has been able to make its morals and views on sexuality integral in Western

thought and many of the social stigmas and moral dilemmas entangled with sexuality and gender

identity go back to Christian morals, essentialist perspectives, and the traditional stance of

fundamentalists. Western, Christian morals limit society’s perception of sexuality and gender to

categories of “intrinsic right and wrong,” which, according to Nietzsche, Mocks, and Weeks is

an illogical method of defining and characterizing these complex and fluid concepts (Nietzsche

383). Although Nietzsche does not implicitly reference morality in regards to sexuality and

gender, his philosophical argument regarding the relevance of morals as a consequence of fear

and “herd-instinct obedience” to authority directly apply to society’s understanding and

intolerance of varying sex/gender systems and the negative perception of “abnormal” sexual

preferences based on Christian morals (Nietzsche 370). On a larger scale, the Christian morals

4
which define the “natural” and “correct” sexuality and gender, have continually become more

important to identity and in the political and social spheres. Biopolitics such as the conflict over

abortion laws, transgender rights, and gay marriage have been on the forefront of political

debates over the last decade. Political arguments made against these topics stem from the

Christian moral systems in place which assert that it is immoral and unnatural to go against the

Christian-defined typologies already in place, despite the supposed separation of Church and

State. The increasing polarization of political views on sexuality and gender are due to the

narrow sphere of acceptance of Christian based moral systems, demonstrating the vast reach that

Christian values and morality have in political issues.

Furthermore, the rejection of other sexualities and genders by society and Christian moral

systems, provides a basis for violence against individuals who don’t conform with the acceptable

sexual preferences and gender identities. From the tragic and inhumane lynching of Matthew

Shephard to self-inflicted violence as a result of bullying or pressure to conform to moral

systems, the LGBTQ+ community receives a wide range of hate and violence both verbally and

physically; the Christian morals that form societal perspective on sex and gender are used to

justify violence against individuals who do not conform. This is ironic in itself as Christian moral

systems typically denounce violence and hate, demonstrating how fear of deviating from the

norm, as Nietzsche discussed, drives and directs the reaction of those subscribed to Christian

morality.

Overall, the arguments and philosophy discussed in the works of Nietzsche and Weeks

come together to provide an argument against the use of Christian morality to define,

characterize, and set the acceptable standards for sexuality and gender. Christian moral systems

appear to favor the overly simplistic and categorical views of essentialism and refuse to consider

5
the fluidity of sex and gender as concepts that exist on a spectrum. The perception of sexuality in

modern, Western society brings up the question of what gives Christianity the authority to decide

these significant aspects of personal and social identity? Mock’s personal experience further

supports the argument that sex and gender cannot be divided into definite and morally correct

typologies. Ultimately, Western society must evaluate the Christian-based moral system it

operates within to determine whether or not Christian morals and perspectives on sexuality and

gender are appropriate for the entirety of a society that is not exclusively Christian. Further,

society must evaluate the historical and social roots of sex and gender systems and consider the

fluidity of sexuality and gender identification that exists along a spectrum.

6
 Bibliography

Pojman, Louis P. Philosophy of Religion. Waveland Press, 2009.