Christmas Meditations, 2014

Ebenezer Scrooge’s biting criticism of Christmas was true on the visible level: “Christmas is a time for buying things.”

The Grinch stole every inane accessory of Christmas festivity in the attempt to cancel it.  The holiday, to him, seemed merely an excuse for noise making and frivolous rituals.

Ebenezer’s conversion was a climax built on the revelation of three distinct truths: His broken past, his hapless present, and his hopeless future.  His conversion was not directly influenced by Christmas themes or traditions; rather, Christmas afforded him the opportunity to reconcile with others.  He did so mainly by giving away what he had previously withheld.

The Grinch’s conversion was effected by a noise.  His preceding resentment centered around noise, but the new noise was different and unexpected.  What grew his heart was the realization that the bobbles and trinkets which he had stolen were accidental to the meaning of the celebration.

Neither “A Christmas Carol” nor “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” are Christ-centered stories; at least not palpably.  Both stories deal with a grouchy person who desires no part in the celebration but are nevertheless wooed into the most excellent participation.  Both stories are quite predictable.  Why?

In both stories, the villain protagonists would have been correct in their judgment if their estimation of Christmas had been correct.  They scorned what they saw and heard.  There was something hidden from them and their lack of knowing that thing made them villainous.  In one sense, it was through much labor that both characters were changed.  In another sense, it was something very simple and direct which changed them.  Scrooge saw his grave.  The Grinch heard a sound.

Dr. Seuss’ story is much simpler than Dickens’ (and this should be obvious, as it was written for children).  The moral of it is nonetheless important:  Trees and carols and presents are celebration enhancers.  They give expression to the meaning of the celebration.  The meaning itself should be enough inspiration to hold hands and sing out in joy.

Ebenezer’s journey to the light of Christmas is much subtler.  His vice is singular and apparent, but the means by which he is freed of his greed shows that he is a complicated character.  He is forgetful of his past and in denial of his social condition.  He not only fails to see the meaning of Christmas; he fails to see himself.  It is by seeing himself that he is changed.

Reality is much more complex than stories but, by simplifying reality into story-form, we can understand it better.  If Christmas does not inspire us to hold hands and sing out in joy, regardless of what gifts we were given, than we have problems.  Our problems are Scrooge’s problems.  Scrooge’s problems are the Grinch’s problems.  We perceive things but remain ignorant and in our ignorance we hold false attitudes towards those things.  This holds true not merely for stuff, but for ourselves also.  We forget who we are, where we came from, and where we are heading.  The truth is what changes us, if only we see it.

We are, each one of us, broken.  We live in uneasy company with the rest of the human race.  We are all, right now, losing time until death.

The trouble with us modern-day misers is that not only do we fail to see the facts, we fail to see their relation to Christmas.  The funny thing about misers, like the pre-repentant Scrooge, is that they neglect themselves in order to store up wealth:  The wealth they store up is used for no worldly comfort or what might be deemed frivolity.  What they sweat and strain to accumulate is no more than the feeling that they need not worry.  Whatever dire necessity they need, money will buy it.  In a way, we are all misers.  We neglect things we perceive as inane for the sake of feeling OK.  Well, the joke is on us.  We sell ourselves short only for the facts to remain:  We’re screw-ups, we’re alone, we’re going to die.

There is good news for those who will hear it.

We are, each one of us, broken.  We are not, as a species, broken.  We live in uneasy company with each other, but we are united in the prospect of peace.  We are all, right now, losing time until death, yet death is unnecessary.

What insane paradoxes!  I am broken but unbroken. My enemies are my friends.  I must die but I do not have to.  How could they make sense?  For Ebenezer, the answer must have been obvious. 

The moral of both stories, so often echoed by so many Christmas films, are often presented to be, “don’t be a stick in the mud.”  A child might accept such a moral without question and so, for lack of thoughtful adults, Christmas becomes just another “kid thing.”  Be jolly, give out lots of presents, and pretend that sometimes magic exists.  Seeing and hearing amount to things beginning to look a lot like Christmas and Silver Bells on every street corner.

“Noise, noise, noise…” says the Grinch.

The joy of Christmas which changed hardened hearts cannot have been Bing Crosby’s dulcet tones.  It must have been something a little more serious.

If there is a God, the facts are worse.  Not only are we broken, but there is someone we must answer to for all of the crappy things we have done.  Not only are we at war with the world, but God is watching it all go down.  Not only will we die, but God will be there… waiting.

Then comes Christmas.  God decides to become one of us.  He is born into the world as a flesh-and-blood human being; a messy, puny little baby.

God, master of the universe, is cold.

The Gender Song

There has been a movement in a nearby community college which aims to make acceptable a dual right of bathroom privileges by "transgender" individuals (at least institutionally).  Upon seeing a pamphlet which one of these activist groups has been distributing for their cause, I realized that I did not quite understand what "transgender" means.  I did some cursory research to uncover a suitable definition.  I found quite an extensive explanation of "gender" and "transgender" and all the related terminology from genderspectrum.org, from which the following quotes have been taken.  Follow me, as I build a definition of "gender" from those who know "gender" best:

Firstly, they tackled the precedent nature-nurture question and what difference "gender" had to "sex".  I found this interesting, as I had always taken for granted that they were synonymous.

 "In short, gender is a socially constructed concept."

 That is, it is not the same as one's physical anatomy (organs, hormones, structure, etc.).

 "Along with one’s physical traits, [gender] is the complex interrelationship between those traits and one’s internal sense of self as male, female, both or neither as well as one’s outward presentations and behaviors related to that perception."

So gender is a socially constructed concept which consists of one's personal sense of self in relation to his physical anatomy.  This personal sense of self as male, female, both, or neither is one's "gender identity".

 "Given the potential variation in all of these [anatomical characteristics], biological sex must be seen as a spectrum or range of possibilities rather than a binary set of two options."

The variations they mention are not explained, so it is difficult to see how a "spectrum" of traits makes any more difference in gender differentiation than a "binary set".  The definition, nevertheless, is that gender is a socially constructed concept which consists of one's personal sense of self in relation to his place in the spectrum of physical traits.

 "Some of these individuals choose to socially, hormonally and/or surgically change their sex to more fully match their gender identity."

So much for the variations of the anatomical sex spectrum.  Perhaps they mean to drive home that there is no real connection at all between anatomy and gender.  Gender is a socially constructed concept which consists of one's personal sense of self in relation to his place in the spectrum of physical traits which may be changed to more fully match this sense of self.  "Gender expression" is not "gender identity", but the way in which one decides to express himself as male or female or both or neither.

  "Sometimes, transgender people seek to match their physical expression with their gender identity, rather than their birth-assigned sex. Gender expression should not be viewed as an indication of sexual orientation."

This is a fair and clever distinction.  Gender is a socially constructed concept which consists of one's personal sense of self in relation to his place in the spectrum of physical traits which may be changed to more fully match this sense of self, yet this physical expression of gender may or may not equate to his gender identity.

 "More narrowly defined, [transgender] refers to an individual whose gender identity does not match their assigned birth gender."

So "transgender" person is somebody whose gender is a socially constructed concept which consists of one's personal sense of self in a socially-contradictory relation to his place in the spectrum of physical traits which may be changed to more fully match this sense of self, yet this physical expression of gender may or may not equate to his gender identity.

 "Gender fluidity conveys a wider, more flexible range of gender expression, with interests and behaviors that may even change from day to day. Gender fluid children do not feel confined by restrictive boundaries of stereotypical expectations of girls or boys. In other words, a child may feel they are a girl some days and a boy on others, or possibly feel that neither term describes them accurately."

So a "transgender" person is a person whose gender is a socially constructed concept which consists of one's personal sense of self which may change from day to day, sometimes creating a socially-contradictory relation to his place in the spectrum of physical traits which may be changed to more fully match this sense of self, yet this physical expression of gender may or may not equate to his gender identity and may change from day to day.  The folks at genderspectrum.org are experts in child-rearing and are consequently adamant that parents do not make their children feel bad about whatever feelings they may have regarding their gender.

 "These rejecting behaviors undermine a child’s self-esteem and feelings of self-worth. It should not be surprising that many of the children who end up in the foster care system, run away, or become homeless are gender nonconforming and transgender."

It seems they are insinuating that, when a child is "gender nonconforming", they are prone to abuse and thus are taken from their homes or run away.  So parents, do not make your children feel bad about their gender-feelings, because you may lose your children!  It is therefore a mistake to think that children who are abused by their parents or have any broken or damaged relationship with them or who are rebellious or rejected by society are thus encouraged by their spiritually damaging and psychologically tumultuous worlds to have diverse issues in their personal identity or in judging their self-worth.  So, gender is a socially constructed concept which consists of one's personal sense of self which may change from day to day, sometimes creating a socially-contradictory relation to his place in the spectrum of physical traits which may be changed to more fully match this sense of self, yet this physical expression of gender may or may not equate to his gender identity and may change from day to day, resulting in rejection by their family, peers, and neighbors and thus rendering them a needy minority whose unhappy lives are only the faults of those narrow-minded individuals who cannot bring themselves to accept transgender individuals for who they are.

So ladies, if a man walks into your bathroom, who looks like a man and is attracted to females, he just might be a female at heart, which makes him a transgender lesbian who happens to have a male anatomy.  If this alarms you, know that narrow-minded people like you are the ones who make this world such a difficult place for misunderstood people to live in.