Document Type : .
Authors
1 M.A in Science and Religion, Shahid Beheshti University / the Institute for Science and Technology Studies (ISTS),
2 Assistant Professor of Political Sociology, Shahid Beheshti University / the Institute for Science and Technology Studies (ISTS), mj_esmaeili@sbu.ac.ir (Corresponding author)
Abstract
Abstract:
This study analyzes the subject positioning of transgender individuals within scientific (psychiatric and sociological) and religious (Christianity and Shia jurisprudence) discourses, examining the interactions between these two institutions. The research aims to understand the internal transformations within each discourse and their dynamic relationships using Stenmark's multidimensional model, which emphasizes goals, methods, and outcomes. According to Stenmark's model, the relationship between science and religion is dynamic and multifaceted, ranging from conflict and separation to cooperation and evolution. Both institutions prioritize alleviating human suffering and defining modern identity, yet employ different methodologies and yield divergent outcomes. While scientific discourse tends toward greater acceptance of transgender individuals, religious approaches vary significantly from rejection to acceptance.
Keywords: Christianity, Relations Between Science and Religion, Shia jurisprudence, Subject Position, Transgender
Introduction:
This study examines the interaction between modern science and religious discourses concerning the subjectivity of transgender individuals, addressing a research gap in Transgender Studies. Drawing on Michael Stenmark's multidimensional model, it critiques essentialist views that assume a fixed science-religion relationship. Stenmark emphasizes the dynamic, context-dependent nature of their interactions, analyzing shared goals, methods, and outcomes. The research explores how scientific (sociology, psychiatry) and religious (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Shia Islam) discourses construct transgender subjectivity, highlighting similarities, differences, and relations (conflict, distinction, dialogue, or integration). The central question is how these discourses position transgender subjects and what patterns characterize their interrelations.
Materials & Methods:
This study employs a qualitative, library-based method for discourse analysis. Data were gathered from a wide range of sources, including academic articles in psychology and sociology from databases such as SID, Google Scholar, and PubMed, as well as primary Shia jurisprudential texts (in Persian, Arabic, and English) reflecting the views of Grand Ayatollahs Khamenei and Sistani. Religious texts from online libraries of Christian denominations were also consulted. Keywords for the search included "transgender," "gender identity," "subjectivity," "Christianity," and "Shia jurisprudence." A descriptive-analytical approach was applied, whereby the collected sources were thematically categorized and critically examined to identify patterns of subject positioning and inter-discursive relations based on Stenmark's model.
Results & Discussion:
The analysis reveals a significant evolution in the subject positioning of transgender individuals across discourses. In psychiatry, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) demonstrates a paradigm shift: from classifying transgender people as "deviants" (DSM-I/II) to "psychiatric patients" (DSM-III) and finally to individuals with a "diverse human experience requiring support" (DSM-V), explicitly attributing distress to societal factors. Similarly, sociology transitioned from a Gender Deviance Paradigm (positioning subjects as "deviants") to a Gender Difference Paradigm (positioning them as "diverse subjects"), employing conflict theory and symbolic interactionism.
Religious discourses exhibit stark contrasts. Catholic and Orthodox traditions position transgender individuals as "spiritually misled," rejecting medical transition based on biblical gender essentialism (Genesis 1:27). Liberal Protestant denominations, through hermeneutical reinterpretation, affirm them as "full church members." Within Shia Islam, jurisprudential evolution began with Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa permitting surgery for khunsa (intersex). Contemporary authorities diverge: Ayatollah Sistani rejects transgender subjectivity entirely, anchoring legitimacy to biological sex alone ("delusional"), whereas Ayatollah Khamenei permits transition when medically validated, positioning subjects as "patients with human rights." All major religious traditions enforce gender binarism, systematically excluding non-binary identities.
Applying Stenmark's multidimensional model reveals complex science-religion dynamics. While both domains share a nominal commitment to human well-being, their methods and outcomes diverge. Scientific psychiatry's empirical methodology enabled depathologization, correlating with increased societal empathy. Religious frameworks show bifurcated engagements: Shia dynamic jurisprudence selectively incorporates medical expertise, while Catholic doctrine weaponizes scientific studies (e.g., post-transition suicide risks) to reject transition. Key interaction principles emerge:
Bidirectionality: Scientific evidence prompts religious reinterpretation (e.g., DSM-V influencing liberal theology), while religious ethics challenge medical norms.
Context-Dependency: Local socioreligious landscapes shape engagement (e.g., Iran's fatwa system versus U.S. secularism).
Adaptability: Discursive evolution occurs in both science (DSM revisions) and religion (progressive hermeneutics).
Stenmark's model elucidates four interaction patterns regarding transgender subject positioning:
Conflict between conservative religious binary norms and DSM-V's depathologization.
Independence in Catholic/Orthodox rejection of medical evidence.
Interaction in Shia Islam's conditional acceptance of gender-affirming care.
Transformation as both discourses adapt to social changes.
Conclusion:
This study demonstrates that the subject positioning of transgender individuals is a product of dynamic and multifaceted interactions between scientific and religious discourses, best understood through Stenmark's multidimensional model. The research highlights that science-religion relations are neither uniformly conflictual nor integrative but exist on a spectrum mediated by institutional power, epistemic values, and cultural contingency. Empirically, societies influenced by scientific or progressive religious paradigms show greater transgender acceptance, whereas conservative religious contexts perpetuate marginalization—even where fatwas permit transition. The study underscores the need for cross-disciplinary dialogue, context-sensitive policymaking addressing healthcare access and documentation, and decoupling gender diversity from essentialist ontologies in religious hermeneutics. Future research should explore other religious traditions like Sunni Islam and Judaism, employing intersectional methodologies to assess local cultural mediators. Ultimately, human-centric solutions require transcending binary paradigms while respecting epistemic pluralism.
Keywords
)