[All Lists] [By Thread] [By Date] [Previous] [Next]
From: R. Feldman
Subject: Gender
Date: 25 Av 5783
Subject: Committee discussion
The chair has listened to three weeks of discussion. I want to summarize what I have heard.
R. Nachmani proposed several approaches: - A simple binary (G:M, G:F) - Talmudic categories (androgynos, tumtum) - The mechitza model (which side do you sit on?) - Modifiers for practice (M+++ through M---)
Each approach was examined and found wanting. The modifier approach was particularly promising (encoding practice rather than identity) but ultimately required interpretation of what practice meant, bringing us back to contested identity questions.
Arguments for including gender: - Gender affects Jewish practice in concrete ways - The tradition already has categories for gender complexity - Excluding it ignores an important dimension of identity
Arguments against: - Gender is not uniquely Jewish — it is a human characteristic - Different communities have incompatible frameworks - Including it requires taking positions the committee cannot take - Trans and non-binary Jews may be harmed by inadequate categories
The committee appears unable to reach consensus. This is not surprising. The question of gender in Jewish life is contested across our communities.
Thread: