I have a new paper in the Journal of Disability and Religion 19.2 (2015), 106-118 (formerly the Journal of Religion, Disability and Health) entitled "Intersex and the Rhetorics of Disability and Disorder: Multiple and
Provisional Significance in Sexed, Gender, and Disabled Bodies".
This is an expanded version of the paper I delivered at the International Disability, Illness and Religion Conference at Misjonshøgskolen (School of Mission and Theology), Stavanger, Norway in May 2014.
Abstract: The impulse to make accounts of human sex, gender, and embodiment “mean” monolithically is inadequate. Engaging with David Kelsey’s theological anthropology, I suggest that a more appropriate means of figuring “marginal” bodies theologically is as multiply and provisionally significant. Such bodies may include disabled, intersex, and otherwise variantly sexed and gendered bodies. Although Kelsey does not engage in depth with questions of sex and gender, his assertion that human identity is grounded eccentrically nonetheless yield fruitfully for developing accounts of intersex, gender, ableness, and personhood. Further, I build on John Zizioulas’ claim that humans’ relationships with the world need not be determined by the laws of biology, and Hans Reinders’ reminder that human being-in-relation is grounded in divine self-giving. Christian overinvestment in binary sex-gender norms occurs because the Church has forgotten that personhood-in-God is primary, and that the bodily forms in which humans live are secondary to primary identity in God.
The first fifty people to click this link will receive free full-text access to the article.
This is an expanded version of the paper I delivered at the International Disability, Illness and Religion Conference at Misjonshøgskolen (School of Mission and Theology), Stavanger, Norway in May 2014.
Abstract: The impulse to make accounts of human sex, gender, and embodiment “mean” monolithically is inadequate. Engaging with David Kelsey’s theological anthropology, I suggest that a more appropriate means of figuring “marginal” bodies theologically is as multiply and provisionally significant. Such bodies may include disabled, intersex, and otherwise variantly sexed and gendered bodies. Although Kelsey does not engage in depth with questions of sex and gender, his assertion that human identity is grounded eccentrically nonetheless yield fruitfully for developing accounts of intersex, gender, ableness, and personhood. Further, I build on John Zizioulas’ claim that humans’ relationships with the world need not be determined by the laws of biology, and Hans Reinders’ reminder that human being-in-relation is grounded in divine self-giving. Christian overinvestment in binary sex-gender norms occurs because the Church has forgotten that personhood-in-God is primary, and that the bodily forms in which humans live are secondary to primary identity in God.
The first fifty people to click this link will receive free full-text access to the article.
Comments
Post a Comment