Queer theory, questioning so much of how we have come to think under Biblical influence, often becomes inaccessible. As I’ve noted here before, Judith Butler is as hard to understand as she is important. She shows just how far into intellectual hinterlands one can travel if one simply disregards Genesis 1:27.
So it is extremely helpful when Christian thinkers engage with this feature of our culture by truly trying to understand it. An early offering in this vein is the short (40 pages), smart and useful Plastic People: How Queer Theory is Changing Us (2010), by Peter Sanlon. Right when queer was bursting on the scene, Sanlon demonstrated how to give a sympathetic reading (e.g., p35 –“Butler is one of those rare people willing to question and challenge…” “Much to admire in Queer Theory…”), while clearly contrasting it with a Christian worldview.
Robert Smith in his 2025 book, The Body God Gives, gives another example. Dr. Smith has appeared on this site before in a recommendation of his work.
This book is divided into three parts. The first part has a chapter wading into gender theory and fairly explains it. But I especially liked Part II “Sex, Gender and Transgender in Historical Perspective,” tracing the history of the concept of gender. It gives reader a valuable chart of what sex and gender mean in Trans and Queer theory.
Dr. Smith then summarizes and analyzes Judith Butler’s thought, which is hard to do, so this work makes a needed contribution from a believing Christian perspective:
“Butler…should not be faulted for exploring the performative powers of speech…She is to be faulted, however, for her reductionism….granting God-like, body-forming powers to human words” (p139).
He also cites the philosopher, Kathleen Stock,’s taxonomy of gender definitions, which I am glad to see promoted.
One may arrive at different conclusions from Smith as to the nature of gender and its relationship of our souls to our bodies. His definition of gender, “the psychological perception, social manifestation, and cultural communication of biological sex” (p290), may leave out a spiritual distinction in ourselves, a difference of how the one common human nature operates differently, or is organized differently, in the woman and the man. Getting that wrong can have big consequences.
One may also take issue with some of his recommendations. But, as a careful foray into the opaque world of gender and queer theory, this book serves a needed purpose.