The Sweetest Poisons: Interlude
Dr. Preston Sprinkle transitions to the "Practical"
Note on this post: If you follow my blog, you might know that my dear friend
has been writing a series of articles on Dr. Preston Sprinkle’s book Embodied, titled, “The Sweetest Poisons”. Embodied is a book written for evangelical Christians and at least claims to wrestle with transgender identities from an evangelical perspective. However, it comes across consistently anti-trans. Billie’s series is outstanding, precisely because of the good faith she keeps while helping readers understand the issues with Dr. Sprinkle’s writing. She’s also thorough and sharp with her analysis. To help her with her enormous task of critiquing this entire book, I’m stepping in to write about a transitional (no pun intended) chapter titled “Interlude”, and will also cover the following chapter over the coming weeks. Her entire series is well worth reading!To those of you who follow Billie and are already familiar with her work, Hi! I’m Celeste Irwin. I’m a trans woman and a Christian. I’ve loved Billie’s series and can only hope that I can do justice to these portions. Welcome to my blog, and if you want to get future updates to this series as well as my other writings, you can subscribe (free) here:
After Chapter 9, Dr. Preston Sprinkle (whose PhD is in New Testament) pivots the book, using a short chapter titled “Interlude”. This chapter functions as a summary of what’s come before, and pivot to the practical application section after. Particularly, it functions as a kind of hardening of what came before. Where, as Billie Hoard noted repeatedly, Dr. Sprinkle expressed at least some humility and uncertainty in earlier chapters, here he pivots to greater certainty. This lays the foundation for the practical applications in following chapters, which would have to be less direct if the uncertainty remained.
In addition, Dr. Sprinkle attempts to reinforce his image as someone who compassionately cares for transgender people, but does not demonstrate engaging with trans Christians who disagree with him. Billie’s name for this series, “The Sweetest Poisons”, captures the contrast here: Dr. Sprinkle claims to be kind, and he is certainly polite, but underneath his civil tone is a message that frequently does great harm while being untethered to truth.
Opening: Story about Biola Conversation
Dr. Sprinkle begins the interlude with a talk about an experience of his at Biola University giving, “a bunch of talks on transgender identities.” He initially frames it as scary for him because Gen Z college students, “have many LGBT+ friends, or they are LGBT+ themselves.”
This is disingenuous.
Biola’s student policies1 forbid same-sex romantic relationships or medical gender transition. On-campus housing is placed based on sex assigned at birth. And students know this when attending. This is not a hostile audience for Dr. Sprinkle - this is a group of students who chose to go to a university which prohibits LGBTQIA+ people from openly living as themselves.
Now, undoubtedly there are closeted LGBTQIA+ individuals there, including those who did not understand their gender identity or sexuality until they had already chosen Biola. There’s likely some non-queer individuals there who support queer rights but since the policy doesn’t affect them, they were ok with Biola.2
But it’s very important to note: this is a school where if someone had expressed disagreement with Dr. Sprinkle, they would have been expressing disagreement with the school policies, and therefore may have been subject to school discipline. This is not the challenging environment Dr. Sprinkle makes it out to be.
On the other hand, Dr. Sprinkle shows little track record generally of inviting conversations with those who don’t agree with him. Despite having literally written a book and given talks on transgender people, I can find no example where he has ever spoken with a transgender Christian who was happy with their transition and holds mainstream views of the trans community3. Myself and Billie Hoard have repeatedly offered this engagement, to no avail.
The pivotal moment of this story is a quote from a “trans* person” who is involved in Biola’s “the Dwelling” group (a Side B group where LGBTQIA+ people support each other in trying to live out a life without embracing their gender identity or sexuality). Dr. Sprinkle quotes him as saying (ellipses original):
I don’t know how to say this, but … I was really nervous about hearing you speak. People like me, we’re so used to hearing cisgender men like you tell us about our experience. But I want you to know, I was truly shocked by how concerned you were to humanize the conversation. To humanize me. I’m not sure if I agree with everything you said. I’m still just trying to figure myself out. But when you were talking, I felt … seen. And I felt loved. I felt like you cared. And I can’t tell you how much that means to me. I just needed you to know that. (pp. 155-156)
Before I discuss it, I need to point out: unless Dr. Sprinkle was recording the meeting (which would have been wildly unorthodox), this is his recollection of what was said. It’s a long quote and he says it was emotional for him to hear. So, let’s take it as what’s most likely: a paraphrase written after the fact. I’ll let you decide for yourself how accurate it is, because it’s likely impossible to verify at this point.4
Assuming Dr. Sprinkle has at least captured the spirit of what was said, the person has every right to say that, and they may have been authentic. That person may have truly been grateful for someone like Dr. Sprinkle to show up and simply… not demonize them. There have been times when I thanked non-affirming people in a similar fashion.
But, it’s worth noting that a number of trans people have specifically told Dr. Sprinkle they have problems with his discussion of trans people. They’ve been mostly met with silence, and Dr. Sprinkle doesn’t exactly highlight our concerns when he speaks about trans people publicly.
Dr. Sprinkle closes this story with his true point: to say that he was spurred on by this person, and inspired to go through the manuscript for the book one last time, thinking of them. He says:
I know that some of you reading this book are trans*. As I said in the preface, my primary audience is the general Christian population, most of whom aren’t trans*. But I hope you have felt dignified and humanized as you have read my words. You may not have agreed with everything I’ve said or even how I’ve said it. We’re all on a journey, and mine is an imperfect one. But one day, we might find ourselves sitting next to each other. And I hope we’ll be able to call each other friends. (p. 156)
There are two sentences I want to respond to specifically:
“I hope you have felt dignified and humanized as you have read my words.”
Since Dr. Sprinkle uses the second person to refer to trans people here, I will respond directly, as a trans person.
Dr. Sprinkle, let me say this clearly: I felt neither dignified nor humanized. I felt misrepresented much of the time and flat out erased at others. You leave no room for those satisfied with gender transition. You failed to grapple with the decades of research into transition. As we’ll see in the next chapter, you uncritically parrot the worst anti-trans junk science5 while simply ignoring or dismissing the volumes of scientific literature and statements from major medical organizations which support trans people and gender affirming care. Worst of all, since publication of your book, you have completely ignored those who have tried to correct you. There is nothing of humanization in that approach. There’s only the arrogance of a man unaffected by these issues telling others how they should wrestle with them.
And then, in a worse gut punch:
But one day, we might find ourselves sitting next to each other. And I hope we’ll be able to call each other friends.
Again, Dr. Sprinkle, how is this supposed to happen when you simply will not talk to us? Billie herself has reached out numerous times. You’d learn a lot from her if you’d listen. She’s friends with plenty of people who disagree with her. If you truly hope to call those who disagree with you “friends”, it seems to me that an important first step might be to actually talk with those who disagree with you.
Instead, you tokenize6 a nameless, faceless individual on a college campus with strict rules, claiming they endorse your approach if nothing else. And then you leave it there.
I would love nothing more than to spend a weekend with you and Billie talking over these issues. We both love a good conversation, and you might not ultimately agree with us, but if nothing else it would help you base your discussions of these issues in truth and real understanding of the people and the issues. That’s something you say you want, and I hope you consider it.
“Looking back”
Dr. Sprinkle spends the next couple paragraphs landing the summary of his book thus far.
“I don’t think gender should override sex where there is incongruence.”
- Dr. Preston Sprinkle
He asks the question, “If someone experiences incongruence between their gender and biological sex, which one determines who they are—and why?” He then answers it: “I don’t think gender should override sex where there is incongruence.” (emphasis mine).
To put it more sharply, a reasonable paraphrase might be: “to transition is to sin.”
Billie Hoard has already done an excellent job explaining the issues with his arguments up to this point, so I won’t repeat them, but as a guest writer on this series, I feel the need to say I co-sign her critique. If Dr. Sprinkle is saying “If I felt incongruence, I would not transition”, that’s one thing. It’d be another if he were saying, “If someone asked me if I thought transition was good, I’d say ‘it’s your choice, it’s complicated, but I don’t think so.’” But he’s writing that he believes transition “should” not happen. That’s prescriptive advice, advocating for rules within evangelicalism. We should all hesitate before doing such things.
I obviously disagree strongly with Dr. Sprinkle, but won’t belabor that point here. It simply strikes me that he is laying the heaviest of weights on trans Christians, and telling them to bear it, when it costs him absolutely nothing.7 Even worse, he seemingly won’t actually engage with us on our stories. It grieves me just how many trans kids have likely been confronted with Dr. Sprinkle’s words by their parent or pastor who might say, “See, Preston Sprinkle says no.”
And however politely Dr. Sprinkle says it, however much he caveats that he understands this will be hard for trans people, it doesn’t the change the fact of what he is asking these kids and adults to do.
Evidenced-Based Approach
One last thing I want to say is that at no point has Dr. Sprinkle even attempted to demonstrate yet that his recommendation leads to life and flourishing. He hasn’t actually recommended a protocol for support, there’s no specifics other than “don’t transition.” When you contrast this with overwhelming evidence that those who transition are very happy with their choice8, it’s difficult not to see the double standard.
Given the well-documented positive effect gender affirming care has for transgender individuals, the burden is on Dr. Sprinkle to show that his recommendation is as good or better, or for him to show why the existing research is incorrect. Here, I will remind the reader that Dr. Sprinkle’s doctorate is not in psychology, psychiatry, endocrinology, or any other relevant medical field, but rather in New Testament.
Wrapping Up
In this interlude, Dr. Sprinkle attempts to land a summary of the preceding chapters, while also offering an anecdote that serves to bolster his empathetic credentials. However, all he’s really shown is that he’s not aggressively hostile (which is good) and that he disagrees with the reasons one might transition. He has yet to chart out a well-supported path to flourishing for the person with gender dysphoria who he thinks should not transition.
Next chapter, Dr. Sprinkle will cover one of the main talking points against transition - Rapid-onset Gender Dysphoria. If you’ve appreciated this post, please don’t forget to subscribe (free) before you leave! You’re also welcome to leave a comment or question below!
Source: “Sexuality, Gender and Relationships Policy”, Biola University.
To explore this more, I want to highlight the incredible work of REAP, an organization fighting for the rights of queer people at Christian universities. I highly recommend listening to their excellent podcast, “On God’s Campus: Voices from the Queer Underground”
I’m relatively confident he has never done this in public (on his podcast, etc).
He has interviewed:
At least one detransitioner
At least one non-Christian who openly identifies as being an autogynephile. (Billie has already covered how the theory of autogynephilia as an explanation for trans women is complete non-sense.
A Christian who is strongly against any medical transition for minors, a view which is not only well outside the trans mainstream, but against the recommendations of all major medical organizations.
Each of these are narrowly scoped to having the individual talk about the things that are useful to Dr. Sprinkle’s points.
Dr. Sprinkle’s accuracy in quotation will be shown to be questionable when we get to the next chapter.
“Junk Science” is a well-defined term and it absolutely applies to the false concept of “Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria”, to which Dr. Sprinkle devotes the entire following chapter. I do not mean it with hostility or hyperbole. I am using it because, in this case, it is simply accurate.
A bad form of tokenization would be a TV show casting a trans actor just to show that it has queer representation, while failing to write their character in any way that honors their transgender identity.
But a much worse form is to use one member of the trans community to speak against the rest. The effect of what Dr. Sprinkle has done is to tell all cisgender people reading, “Don’t worry, trans people approve of me.” In doing so, he shuts down any instinct readers might have to think, “maybe I should ask a trans person what they think of Preston Sprinkle.” And then even if they do, they now will have the option to say, “well maybe the one I talked to is rare.”
This is the way conservatives use Caitlyn Jenner in particular (she regularly positions herself as “one of the good ones” and the community typically is furious about it).
In fact, his position as a anti-LGBTQ+ evangelical voice has resulted in numerous published books and a strong enough position that he is able to host an annual conference.
Start at page 17 of the US Trans Survey, for example. This result has been replicated numerous times.
A writer who truly cares about trans people would follow the first rule of writing about any community: "If about them, not without them."
In your article, you cited studies backing up your claim that for the most part, transgender people are happy with their transition, surgical and otherwise. Thanks for doing this work.