Another thorn is found in Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them”. No group quarrels with or takes issue that there are, physically, two sexes. The problem arises in interpreting “image” as Genesis specifically mentions “man”. So what did God imply? Yet even Jesus in Mathew 19 allows divorce only for reasons of unchastity yet in a different passage permits dissolution. On gender issues Jesus is well aware that all men are not able to follow his sermons when he concluded: ” He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”
It is the author’s belief that cross dressers suffer enough abuse from the uninformed that adding out of date and misconstrued biblical passages as ammunition to back-up such objections only exacerbates. Fortunately, priests and rabbis are beginning to counsel young CDs and their families by helping them understand that we are all individuals created in God’s image and that guilt should be shed.
So too does the Quran as does the Old Testament forbid eatingg shellfish or the meat of pigs. When the Old Testament was first created and handed down by mouth, before pen was put to parchment, there were good reasons to avoid both, but these reasons became obsolete with more current sanitary practices; nevertheless such rules are still followed by Orthodox Jews and others who persist on taking the Bible literally.
Another interpretation offered for the above verse was the subterfuge of troops fleeing their enemy to don female clothes to escape , not unusual in ancient wars and in recent times. When the Titanic was sinking women and children had priority in lifeboats which was an opportunity seized by a few males to disguise themselves. Possibly the chapter in Deuteronomy referred to these escaping warriors — we will never know.
Certainly many rejections to continue these personal relationships have been strongly influenced by the girl’s parental upbringing. Religious teachings, just a they do on the world stage, can be interpreted from their original meanings or modified down through the ages; modified to fit a personal or political agenda. Passages in the Old and New Testament still haunt those CDs who, because of the religious beliefs of their parents take the words literally without the benefit of learning alternative meanings or the original intentions of the biblical writer for they were never etched in stone.
For example, Deuteronomy, chapter 22, verse 5 reads: “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God”. Obviously Greta Garbo didn’t consider these words when she likely initiated the fashion trend for women to wear pants as they do so commonly in recent years. But going back to the ancient Greeks and Romans – they wore togas, a dress if you will, that was considered a robe of sorts worn by men and women just as robe or skirt-type garments are still worn in the 21st Centuary in the middle East and around the world. Ask most woman in the Western world why they prefer pants the answer isually, “Why, because they are more comfortable”. Is this any different than the CD explaining that feminine clothes are more comfortable than male drab? Nevertheless in many Muslim countries the old interpretation of what and how females should wear their outer garments according to the Quran is still followed – women being stoned to death is not unusual if they deviate. In the same vein but a different subject, known homosexuals are put to death by direction of federal laws of certain countries – most natives of these countries would be hard put to explain the rationale.