Julie Roys and LGBTQ+ People
Does abuse of LGBTQ+ people matter?
Trigger Warnings: Discussions of suicide, and instances of transphobia and homophobia. Queer folks, please take care of yourself while reading this.
Disclosure: I am a transgender lesbian Christian. And I previously attended Julie Roys’ conference, “Restore” in 2022. I am inextricably part1 of what I publish here.
“Actually, religious involvement reduces the risk of suicide for EVERY demographic in this study EXCEPT queer people. If you flock to the church when you’re suicidal, you are less likely to die… …unless you are queer.” (ellipsis original)
Bridget Eileen Rivera, author of Heavy Burdens, summarizing a 2018 study in June 2023.
Intro
“The Roys Report is a Christian media outlet, reporting the unvarnished truth about what’s happening in the Christian community so the church can be reformed and restored.” - The Roys Report
Julie Roys is an investigative journalist who has been on the front lines of reporting about abuse in the church for years now. She’s done excellent and important work exposing sexual, spiritual, financial, and other abuses at churches across the country.
The Roys Report also hosts the Restore conference, which I attended in 2022. It’s a place of restoration and advocacy for survivors of abuse in churches, like myself.
Investigating the Investigator?
In 2019, Roys wrote a document titled The Case for Christian Investigative Journalism, currently featured on the About page of The Roys Report. I agree with the entire document, except her description of “evils of the world” which include “feminism” and “the LGBTQ agenda”. She encourages the courtesy of reaching out to leaders first. And when that fails, she emphasizes the necessity of public accountability, which is what this article is2
.
Preface: I informed Julie Roys of these issues in March 20233. I was clear that the issues needed to be addressed, and that I would do so if she would not. She declined, so I am addressing them here.
A history of anti-LGBTQ+ statements
As I was coming out as transgender in December and January, two individuals I trust (Meghan Crozier and Krispin Mayfield) on Twitter pointed out Julie Roys’ history of transphobia. They specifically brought up her past deadnaming of a subject and refusing to use his preferred pronouns4. I became concerned that her stand against abuse in the church may not extend to include the ways LGBTQ+ people are excluded and harmed in many churches.
To summarize: It does not.
In fact, Julie Roys has a history of making offensive statements and spreading dangerous misinformation about LGBTQ+ people, and specifically transgender people, and presently fails to report on abuse of LGBTQ+ people in the church or include our voices and stories at conferences like Restore.
Importantly, my primary issue is not Roys’ personal beliefs about LGBTQ+ people. I am friends with a number of non-affirming people who are nonetheless respectful of LGBTQ+ people, even defending our dignity and rights at times. But abuse in the church affects LGBTQ+ individuals in a way few others experience, leading to actual deaths. It’s very difficult for me to see how exposing and addressing that isn’t part of “reforming and restoring the church”. And in Roys’ case, she has actively participated in that harm.
Before I continue: I want to preface with a brief description of what she told me. I’m not releasing the entire email chain, but Roys is welcome to. She said some of it is personal and I am choosing to respect that. To me, she sounds like she is attempting to say less about LGBTQ+ issues these days. She did say she regretted some of the things she said in the past, but was unspecific about what those things were. She deleted the specific objectionable tweets I sent her as examples, but many others are still on her timeline5. She did say she was sorry she hurt me personally, but also admitted that her apology was vague, and declined to make a public one. And I believe that public harm requires public apology.
With that said, a summary of the issues, which I will expand in the remainder of this post:
Suicidality: She asserts that suicidality greatly increases after gender transition. The opposite is true.
Conversion Therapy: She endorsed people and organizations who attempt to “treat” LGBTQ+ people by “helping” them stop being LGBTQ+. This is dangerous, and studies show these “treatments” lead to significantly higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide.
Restrooms: She stated that allowing trans people to use restrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their gender identity will put women at risk. The opposite is true.
Sports: She stated that allowing trans women to compete in women’s sports will “destroy women’s sports.” That is an extreme portrayal of this complex issue that is not supported by facts.
Theology: She called same-sex unions “essentially symbolic blasphemy.” She also has said that the basis for gender transition is gnosticism6 and therefore heretical.
Platforming: This year alone, she platformed at least two individuals who run organizations that are anti-trans, one of which is also anti-LGBTQ+. She has platformed them and others previously as well.
Pushback on Accountability, Failure to Correct: I’ll cover this at the end, but not only did she refuse to address the incorrect statements she’d previously shared, her pushback went into territory that I think is inappropriate for someone widely trusted to report on abuse.
The remainder of this article will delve into specifics on each of the above. My goals are simple:
Correct Julie Roys’ misinformation about queer people, particularly trans people.
Ensure that queer people and allies are aware of Roys’ history and present.
Do it in a way that extends grace and invites growth.
Spiritual Abuse of LGBTQ+ People
The topic of Spiritual Abuse has been covered expertly by authors like Wade Mullen (Something’s Not Right), Diane Langberg (Redeeming Power), Chuck DeGroat (When Narcissism Comes to Church), and Scot McKnight and Laura Barringer (A Church Called Tov). But, as far as I can tell, there is not a single reference to the mistreatment7 of LGBTQ+ people in their books. Racism, ableism, classism, sexism, antisemitism, and more are all considered forms of spiritual abuse now. Each has certainly been claimed to have theological backing8 in the past, but today, I assume most of you would agree with me that those theological backings were incorrect. Today’s treatment of queer people is just a version of abuse that still stands as acceptable today.
And like Bridget Eileen Rivera told us in the opening quote, this abuse costs lives, and damages so many more.
The specific issues
From here out, I will be discussing Julie Roys’ past statements and why they are false, harmful, or both. Where her book, Redeeming the Feminine Soul: God's Surprising Vision for Womanhood is cited, please note that it was published September 12, 2017, and is still available on Amazon at time of writing.9
Suicidality
The claim (footnote is mine):
According to a 200310 Swedish study, life usually gets worse for those who undergo sex-change surgery. Many experience an increase in mental difficulties about ten years after surgery, and their suicide mortality rate ten to fifteen years after surgery is almost twenty times greater than the comparable nontransgender11 population. Proverbs 14:12 says, “There is a way that appears to be right, / but in the end it leads to death” (NIV).
Roys, Julie. Redeeming the Feminine Soul (p. 123). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.
This is false, as I’ve previously covered at length in my article Death by Hate.
Without repeating everything in my previous article (please read it if you don’t believe this statement), Roys has it backwards12. The Swedish study does not show what she says it does, and its author has said so, including before Roys wrote this (at least as far back as November 2015, not to mention the original 2011 study itself). Moreover, gender affirming care is shown to reduce suicidality, whereas attempts to prevent a trans person from transitioning result in much higher suicidality (according to this podcast, 10 times higher).
Therefore, Roys’ use of Proverbs 14:12 is misapplied. The proverb is correct, but the way that “appears right” but “leads to death” is the way of telling trans people to conform to their sex assigned at birth, which leads to death and mental illness in large numbers. If you are taking this proverb as a way to determine which path is right by looking at which one leads to death, gender affirming care is the path forward.
But my biggest problem is this: imagine a parent reading this book. Then their child comes out as transgender. Given this “information”, a well-meaning parent will either reject the child’s desires to transition13, or live in fear for years or decades waiting for the child’s mental health to decline. The former path is more likely to end in tragedy, and the latter path is miserable for the parent and likely to strain the relationship.
Conversion therapy
The other side of “does affirmation help?” is “does conversion therapy help?” I’ve also addressed that in my previous article Death by Hate. The short answer is no: conversion therapy results in much higher rates of suicide and mental illness than doing nothing, and affirmation is better than both of those options.
But I want to talk about Julie Roys’ treatment of the concept in the past14. First, from her book:
The collapse of Exodus15 received national media attention, giving the impression that the ex-gay movement had died. However, dozens of ex-gay ministries remain, ones that don’t promise to convert gay people to being straight but instead offer healing to sexually broken people and hope for change. Many of these ministries are members of the Restored Hope Network, which is led by Ann (sic) Paulk, a godly and compassionate woman who has experienced change in her sexual orientation.
Ann is not unique. There are hundreds of ex-gay people around the world who testify that they have experienced change in their sexual attractions.
Roys, Julie. Redeeming the Feminine Soul (p. 118). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.
In July 2019, The Roys Report radio show featured a conversation titled “Is Change Possible for Gay & Trans”. It’s no longer available on The Roys Report, but is archived here: Is Change Possible For Gays & Trans? - The Roys Report (podcast) | Listen Notes.
It’s three conversations with individuals who previously identified as LGBTQ+. All three are leaders of organizations which promote the concept of turning away from LGBTQ+ identities:
[Scarlett] McCall - Freedom March;
Anne Edward (formerly Anne Paulk) - Restored Hope Network;
MJ Nixon - Uprooted Heart
McCall previously identified as transgender, and then detransitioned, followed by starting the pro-detransition organization Freedom March. However, earlier this year, she announced that she was transitioning again, and now again goes by Scarlett McCall.
The interviews come with minimal scrutiny from Roys, and no contrary views were presented.
On August 3rd, 2021, the documentary Pray Away was released on Netflix, which covers Exodus International and Freedom March. Both Anne Edward and pre-transition Scarlett McCall appear in it multiple times. Roys published an article (still available) titled “Netflix Doc ‘Pray Away’ Unfairly Disparages Christian Ministries, Say Leaders Featured” on August 21st, 2021, saying on Twitter:
Netflix doc ‘Pray Away’ disparages Christian ministries as it engages charged cultural topics
“As people are vilified, society becomes intolerant of diverse viewpoints. Censorship is the result,” said @AnnePaulk featured in film w/o being asked permission
Please note that the first paragraph is Roys’ words, not a quote of someone else.
The article, written by frequent The Roys Report contributor Josh M. Shepherd, centers around interviews with Anne Edward and also John Warren, who was a former board member of Exodus International. The article includes no statement that anyone involved with the making of Pray Away was contacted for comment. It also notes that Edward was disappointed that she had not been asked for permission before video and photos of her were used. No crime is alleged - the photos were likely provided by her ex-husband. But the article doesn’t note at all that the documentary states that Edward was contacted and declined comment for the documentary. The entire framing of the article is fully sympathetic of both Exodus International and Restored Hope International. I could find no other example of Roys publishing a similarly critical article about any other documentary which was critical of a Christian ministry.
In April 2023, though not related to LGBTQ+ rights, Roys promoted a quote by her “friend”16 Anne Edward on Twitter.
Also noteworthy, her book also charges Alan Chambers (former head of Exodus International) with heresy:
In the years leading up to Exodus’s collapse, Chambers succumbed to the heresy of antinomianism. This is the belief that because Christians are saved by grace, they have no obligation to keep God’s moral law. [19]
Roys, Julie. Redeeming the Feminine Soul (p. 118). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.
I also wrote about some of the dynamics of "can a gay person escape hell even if homosexual behavior is a sin?" on my other blog here, as well as on this blog here, and it matches closely to Chambers’ arguments. I do not believe that my view is rightly described as antinomianism. Our views don’t say that sin doesn't matter. We just have a very large view of the sufficiency of the grace of Christ.
Bottom line: Roys’ has published reporting within the last two years that supports groups like Restored Hope Network1718, continuing a trend dating back to at least her book in 2017.
“Bathroom Bills”
On the subject of bathrooms, Julie Roys wrote this in her book:
For example, in an effort to accommodate transgender men and women, some schools and businesses are now allowing people to use whichever bathroom or locker room fits their chosen gender identity.
...
Just the other day, my teenage daughter ran into a Target to go to the bathroom, forgetting about the department store’s controversial transgender bathroom policy. When she got to the bathroom, she saw two snickering teenage boys enter ahead of her. She thought of complaining to management but then remembered the store allows customers to use whichever bathroom they want, regardless of their biological sex. She then looked for a single-toilet bathroom and couldn’t find one, so she left the store and suffered through a very uncomfortable trip home. Our family shuddered to think what might have happened had she arrived at the bathroom a few seconds later or earlier and encountered the boys in a secluded restroom.
Roys, Julie. Redeeming the Feminine Soul (p. 98). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.
First: I am sorry this happened to Roys’ daughter. I believe this happened, and I don't question it was a scary and uncomfortable experience for Roys’ and her daughter.
That said, the policy she mentions does not actually enable the boys’ behavior. There is nothing in her account that says that those boys identify as women. If her daughter had gone to a manager, I suspect the manager would have kicked the boys out (and the manager definitely should have).
I have previously written in depth about the issue of trans people in sex-segregated spaces. This particular issue has been used to stoke fears of trans people, and (at worst) imply that they are predators. Thankfully, Roys avoids that particular implication.
But back to the book: For Roys to use this situation with her daughter to spread fears over trans women using women's rooms is hurtful and participates in doing harm to trans people. It uses the actions of two cis male boys to put trans women at further risk of poor mental health or being attacked in men's rooms. And, like I said in my article, if bathroom bills are enacted, I believe it opens up a far bigger risk of cis men claiming to be trans men to gain access to women's spaces.
Additionally, Roys’ book was published in 2017, so we have six years to look back: and there is just no evidence that there’s been any widespread danger posed to cisgender women in women-only spaces.
Sports
Roys says this in her book:
The same logic that was applied to hyperandrogenic athletes will certainly be applied to transgender ones, and the testosterone limit on them will eventually be eliminated too. This will destroy women’s sports, and feminists should be up in arms. Instead, they’re celebrating these changes as human rights victories.
Roys, Julie. Redeeming the Feminine Soul (p. 100). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.
As for whether or not she’s right, I’ll just refer you to my recent article The Sports Issue. This wikipedia entry on transgender inclusion in the Olympics is also helpful. In summary, as with bathrooms, despite nearly six years passing, we have no evidence of some trans takeover of women’s sports. And Roys is completely incorrect about the testosterone limit being removed. In all the sports I checked, it’s still very much required, sometimes even more strict than the testosterone limit for cisgender women.
Bias in coverage and voices
Roys told me, “And if I'm doing my job well, my personal opinions shouldn't be reflected in my reporting.” First, I would argue that it’s impossible for a reporter to not have their personal opinions or situation affect their reporting. Even the process of picking which stories to cover, and from what angle to cover them allows bias to seep in. It’s much healthier for a reporter to acknowledge their bias (see my disclaimer at the top of this article) than to assert that it will not affect their reporting.
This sort of thing is hard to view through specific anecdotes19, but if you search her site for “Transgender” or “LGBTQ”, I believe you’ll agree with me that the coverage rarely includes mistreatment of these communities by Christians.
Most notably, despite the avalanche of anti-trans legislation this year, and the Christian organizations driving it (see also, here), Roys did not publish a single article about the legislation.
And for Roys’ conference, Restore 2023, only one speaker is even known to be LGBTQ+ affirming. As far as I know, the same is true for Roys’ podcast.
Theology
This part was not included in my emails to her, as I discovered it later.
Gnosticism
In a now deleted (but available on the Internet Archive) 2017 article “The Heresy that Fuels Transgenderism20”, as well as in this video from April 2018 (still available at time of writing, and relevant section starts at ~17:47 and continues to about 21:00) Roys said that Gnostism underlies the views that a person can be transgender. This is false, and she points to zero sources where trans people say they are gnostic. This strikes me as a categorically unfair characterization, and no trans people are interviewed in the article. The only trans person mentioned is a 10 year old child who Roys misgenders and deadnames in the first five words of the article.
But to be even more clear: Roys’ link to Gnostism here is based on saying that transgender people believe that the body doesn’t matter. I covered this as well in my article Let’s talk Gender Essentialism, but the short version is this: If I thought my body didn’t matter, I wouldn’t be going to great lengths to transition. What would be the point? Gnostism has no value of “restoring” the physical world. Roys would have been well served by speaking to actual transgender people here. As it is, today, she has a video on YouTube calling transgender people (and anyone who supports us) heretics.
Theology of the Body
Earlier this year, one of the largest controversies I’ve seen in Christian Twitter erupted when pastor Josh Butler published an article on The Gospel Coalition. The article was an excerpt of his upcoming book, which delved deeply into the meaning of sex as a metaphor for salvation. Many people, particularly women, wrote excellent critiques of it.21
But this view was not Butler’s unique creation. He’d preached it four years earlier at a TGC conference, and his book had the blessing of publishers and other Gospel Coalition contributors, including the newly formed “Keller Center.” More importantly, his view is heavily based on Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. It’s a Catholic teaching that actually embraces sex as a sacrament, a position rejected by all protestant denominations.
And Roys agreed. In the video I posted above, in making the point that our bodies tell us something about who we are, she says, “The essence of femininity is to receive.” It’s more tasteful than Butler, but it’s not different, and Roys actually takes it much further in terms of implications for LGBTQ+ people than Butler does:
Yet if gender is actually rooted in God, then there must exist masculine and feminine qualities that are essential and unchanging. And if, as John Paul II taught, our bodies are a living theology, then the clues to the essence of masculinity and femininity should be stamped on our bodies. And they are.
Karl Stern, a psychiatrist and convert from Judaism to Christianity, noted this in his book The Flight from Woman, “In the act of sexual union, the male sex organ is convex and penetrating and the female organ is concave and receptive; the spermatozoon is torpedo-shaped and attacks, and the ovum is a sphere ‘awaiting’ penetration.” These physical differences are not merely external but reflect profound differences in the souls of men and women. As theologian Emil Brunner wrote, “Our sexuality penetrates to the deepest metaphysical ground of our personality. As a result, the physical differences between the man and the woman are a parable of the psychical and spiritual differences of a more ultimate nature.” Explaining this “parable” further, Stern wrote, “Just as in sexual physiology, the female principle is one of receiving, keeping and nourishing.” Likewise, the masculine principle is one of action—of moving into the world and ordering—or, as famed missionary and Christian author Elisabeth Elliot taught, the “distilled essence of masculinity” is initiation, and the essence of femininity is response.
Roys, Julie. Redeeming the Feminine Soul (pp. 59-60). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.
And then:
The church must become a place where people can discover and become their true selves, not personalities made in the image of culture or caricatures of the church, but in the image of God. This is perhaps more crucial now than it ever has been at any time in history. Satan is well aware of how critical healthy sexuality and gender are to our spiritual well-beings, and that may be why he has been steadily assaulting and perverting them ever since he met Adam and Eve in the garden. Today we are aiding Satan in his assault. He has deceived us and caused us to hate and reject essential parts of ourselves, and the result is breathtakingly awful.
Roys, Julie. Redeeming the Feminine Soul (pp. 67-68). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.
And then later she draws out the obvious implications for LGBTQ+ people.
[Matthew Vines’s]22 view also ignores the consistent and overarching view of sexuality and gender that’s presented throughout the Bible. As we have discussed, marriage as the one-flesh union of husband and wife is the great metaphor of Scripture—the key to understanding who God is, who we are, and how God relates to His church. And since this metaphor communicates profound spiritual mysteries, such as God’s triune nature and the relationship of Christ to His church, distorting it in any way has serious consequences. God gave us these symbols because we need them to comprehend complex and mind-blowing transcendent realities. But if the symbol is perverted, then so is our ability to understand the Godhead and how we relate to Him.
If one substitutes two men or two women for the one man and one woman in the one-flesh union, then the entire symbol is perverted. It fails to show unity with distinction and instead reflects unity in sameness. It also fails to reflect the life-giving nature of Trinitarian love because unlike heterosexual union, homosexual union is always sterile. Same-sex unions, then, are essentially symbolic blasphemy. Instead of two people reflecting the truth about our Trinitarian God, they are reflecting a lie.
Same-sex marriage destroys the symbolic purpose of marriage as a reflection of Christ’s relationship with His bride, the church. Christ, as the masculine bridegroom, initiates with us. He sacrifices for us and lays down His life for us. The church, as His feminine bride, responds. We receive His gift of salvation and live in a constant state of responding to His divine initiative. Here again, same-sex marriage destroys the truth God created marriage to reflect. Marriage between two men or two women does not convey the masculine initiative and feminine response inherent in Christ’s relationship with the church. Instead it conveys all initiation (two men) or all response (two women) and again perverts the spiritual purpose for which God created the symbol of marriage.
In a recent discussion with an LGBTQ-affirming Christian, I explained this symbolic distortion. He responded by asking me what importance I place on experience. When I asked him why he asked the question, he said, “I just believe that [my transgender friend] is a woman.” He then admitted that the difference between us was that I saw Scripture as true and unchanging, but he viewed it as something that changes to match our experience. That was an astonishing admission—and as much as it grieves me to say it, it places this person in grave danger. In Revelation 22:18–19, God issues a sobering warning to anyone who would add or subtract anything from the Word of God: “God will add to him the plagues described in this book” and “will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city.” God does not excuse idolatry. We must accept Him as our fixed and unchanging point of reference. Failing to do so will destroy not only our afterlives, but our lives on earth as well.
Roys, Julie. Redeeming the Feminine Soul (pp. 120-122). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.
Please don’t miss these quotes:
“Today we are aiding Satan in his assault.”
“Same-sex unions, then, are essentially symbolic blasphemy.”
“Failing to do so will destroy not only our afterlives, but our lives on earth as well.”
Platforming Kaeley Triller Harms
On March 13th, Roys published an article by Kaeley Triller Harms on her website which critiqued the Butler article as well. I would argue that most of what she says about Butler’s theology could be said about Roys’ book as well. After all, both Roys and Butler are drawing explicitly from Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, so it makes sense there is significant overlap. In my reading of both (I’ve read significant portions of Butler’s book Beautiful Union), Roys’ is significantly more nuanced and makes more room for variations in how gender is expressed, even spending most of Chapter 4 arguing (rightly, I would say) that everyone has both masculine and feminine in them. But that doesn’t change the core conclusion as applied to the LGBTQ+ community, and there she goes quite a bit farther than Butler does.
But the platforming of Harms (previously, Haver) is interesting for another reason - she is the co-founder of Hands Across the Aisle Coalition, an organization that exists as a partnership between religious conservatives and secular trans-exclusionary feminists who both oppose transgender rights. Before that, Harms was the communications director for Just Want Privacy, which Wikipedia calls, “a campaign to repeal a law in Washington state that allows transgender people to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity.” And indeed, that is what she was doing when she was interviewed by Roys on her radio program, and then cited in her book (footnote mine):
The [incident with Roys’ daughter at Target] reminded me of Kaeley Triller Haver, a rape survivor I interviewed on a radio program exploring the bathroom wars. She explained that for her and the millions of other women who are sex abuse survivors, encountering a man in a women’s bathroom would trigger feelings of panic and terror, even if nothing happened. But assaults do happen in bathrooms and locker rooms. In 2016 the Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal ministry, posted a list of fifty documented cases23 in which a man assaulted, attacked, endangered, or harassed a girl or woman in a women’s bathroom or locker room. Nevertheless, government, school, and business leaders continue to ignore this obvious threat to women, thanks in part to fourth-wave feminists.
Roys, Julie. Redeeming the Feminine Soul (pp. 98-99). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.
Harms describes herself as a rape survivor here, as part of her argument for why “men” should be kept out of women’s spaces. And in her article published by Roys says that she “got pregnant out of wedlock” (unrelated to her being raped).
What she leaves out in both accounts is her own inappropriate sexual relationship with a teenager24 she met while working as a residential treatment counselor. On July 25th, 2017 Harms released an announcement to Facebook detailing what happened. It says, in part (footnote mine):
Nine years ago, I worked as a residential treatment counselor for juvenile delinquent males between the ages of 12 and 21. I was really good at the job, but I was a very broken person, and I was completely unaware of my own vulnerability.
To this day, I cannot explain or understand why, but I found myself in a relationship with a former client. He was 17, and I was 23. He was no longer in the program when it happened, but I still knew it was wrong. It was like a chemical attraction that I didn’t know how to break.”
…
Though 16 is the age of consent in Washington, my previous position of authority was shady ground in terms of the law, and I found myself under criminal investigation. CPS issued a strike against me, but the police determined that I was not guilty of a crime. I was never arrested or charged with any crime.
It’s unclear how old Harms was when she first met the former client, but she goes on to say that a pregnancy resulted from her “relationship.” That is what Harms means when she says she “got pregnant out of wedlock.”
Roys has broken stories about similar pasts of church leaders, even ones that broke no laws. She’s argued against their restoration to positions of power. My only explanation for amplifying someone like Kaeley Triller Harms is that Roys somehow did not know about her past25. If that’s the case, I would expect Roys to immediately state that she does not support Harms and pull her piece from The Roys Report. But that still would not change the fact that Harms is deeply anti-trans, and Roys seemingly didn’t have a problem with that.
Editing on August 11th to add for completion: The Roys Report also published, on March 6th, 2023, an article written by Josh Shepherd, which highlighted many critiques of Butler’s article, and the fact that he had apologized for it and TGC had retracted it.
Deadnaming, Misgendering, and Diagnosis
This part mostly happened long ago, and Roys has stated that she intends not to do this anymore, so I’ve covered it only in footnotes 4 and an additional one here.26
Personal Safety in Dialogue
My dialogue with Julie Roys was generally polite. She called me “Celeste” and at no point told me I was “in sin” or in any way insulted or demeaned my gender transition or womanhood, though she also did not support it. However, there were two instances in which Roys engaged in behavior that shares commonalities with leaders attempting to cover behaviors they don’t want to have made public.
This was surprising to me, because they were quickly recognizable to me as someone who has read many books on the tactics of abuse and manipulation, particularly Wade Mullen’s Something’s Not Right as well as A Church Called Tov by Scot McKnight and his daughter Laura Barringer27. Mullen and McKnight both spoke at Restore in 2022, and Mullen and Barringer are on the list to speak this year.
A Request for Confidentiality
After I asked if we could dialogue further, Roys included the following request in her response:
In that spirit, I am willing to engage in conversation about things I have written. However, doing so will necessarily mean commenting on social issues, which I don't want to do publicly. As I've said before, I feel like commenting on these issues will be a distraction to my main work. And if I'm doing my job well, my personal opinions shouldn't be reflected in my reporting. So, this would be my request. Would you be willing to keep our conversations private? If so, I will do my best to answer your questions and look forward to hearing your perspective, as well.
First, please don’t skip over the fact that she says that commenting on this would be a “distraction” from her work. I for one do not consider LGBTQ+ inclusion/exclusion/abuse in the church a distraction. As I’ve said, it’s one of the deadliest forms of abuse in the church today.
Second, after considering the request for a roughly a week, I began my response with:
Hi Julie - sorry for the delay. I needed to figure out whether or not I could agree to committing to this being a private conversation.
I've concluded that such a commitment would function as a sort of "Handshake NDA". It has no legal teeth, but I take my commitments and integrity seriously. As such, it would create a situation in which, regardless of what you say, I would be pretty much bound to not tell anyone. And while I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt, many of the words you've said on the topic in the past (and still have published) are hurtful already, so it would not be surprising if your words going forward are hurtful as well. I know you would not mean them that way, but as we always say, impact and intention are not the same thing.
As such, I've written out what I can, and I leave you with the decision of if or how to address these things publicly.
The email then detailed my issues with her treatment of trans people in her public statements, clocking in at over 8,000 words and more than 50 citations.
The Roys Report has previously addressed the concept of NDA’s in churches #NDAfree Seeks to End Christian Orgs Use of Non-Disclosure Agreements (julieroys.com).
Survivor and abuse advocate Lori Anne Thompson said this about NDA’s on stage at Restore 2022:
So, it’s another way to dehumanize people is to make it so that they can’t tell their story. And speaker after speaker after speaker has said that giving voice to voiceless things is part of the healing process, right? That’s part of naming and identifying what you’ve been through. So non-disclosure agreements are, they’re, they’re diabolical, and they’re an extension of the abuse and oppression that most people experienced in the first place. They ought not be.
Fundamentally, as Lori Anne Thompson also said in the same talk, NDA’s “are supposed to be used for trade secrets, not for trauma secrets.”
I do not believe that any LGBTQ+ person should ever be asked to discuss these sorts of issues confidentially, and believe Roys’ request here was inappropriate. A person with a history of anti-LGBTQ+ remarks could easily become very unsafe with such a promise in place. I tried to be courteous by reaching out to Roys privately, with the goal of her being able to proactively address these issues publicly. But that’s my choice to extend her that privacy.
Roys’ Response
Roys final response to my lengthy description of the issues was surprising to me. It was politely toned, and included the personal (but vague) apology I mentioned earlier. But even while knowing I had declined her request for confidentiality, Roys included the following paragraph:
So, I'm not sure where this leaves us. If you want to call me out publicly for positions I held 5-6 years ago and may not even hold anymore, you may do that. It will likely hurt me and hurt the conference. I don't think that's your objective. But as you say, impact and intention are not the same thing. Just so you know, I started Restore simply because my heart broke for the church refugees I met during my reporting, and I felt God prompting me to create a safe space where they could gather and He could minister to them. I think you experienced it as a safe place yourself28, and I think you would again. The consistent message I've heard from people who have attended has been how unique and special Restore is. Even Diane Langberg told me she's never experienced a conference quite like it. I think it would be really sad if the conference ends. But I also am not willing to go through what I went through last spring again. A person can only take so much.
Bear with me as I walk through this paragraph through the eyes of someone who has experienced intimidation and silencing tactics before.
If you want to call me out publicly for positions I held 5-6 years ago and may not even hold anymore, you may do that.
“held 5-6 years ago” is a denial of the provable fact that she has held these views much more recently than that: The misgendering incident mentioned earlier (see also: footnote 4) happened in summer 2020, less than three years before I sent her this email. And The Roys Report’s article criticizing Pray Away was published less than two years ago.
“May not even hold anymore” is an obfuscation. It’s an attempt to make her position neutral, when it’s not. She is on record as anti-LGBTQ+ in a number of forms. In fact, in June of this year, Roys tweeted,
The Supreme Court this week declined to hear an appeal from College of the Ozarks (@CofOHardWorkU), a MO Christian college, seeking to halt a Biden administration policy the college believes may force it to allow biological males in women’s dormitories.
As Dr. Laura Marie Grimes replied, this language implies anti-trans bias (Roys did not respond). And it’s not a quote, it’s Julie Roys’ own words, to say “biological males” instead of “transgender women” or even “those assigned male at birth.” The trans community does not use the phrase “biological males/females”, because it implies that our gender identity has no biological basis, which is increasingly disputed by the field of neuroscience. The Endocrine Society has stated, “Considerable scientific evidence has emerged demonstrating a durable biological element underlying gender identity.” And finally, the use of “biological males” goes against AP Stylebook29, which Roys says she follows.
But more importantly, the only reason we don’t know Roys’ views, is that she won’t clarify them, because she believes they would be a “distraction.” And yet, whatever her views are, they currently allow for using “biological males” as a term, platforming leaders of anti-trans groups (Anne Edward, Kaeley Triller Harms), and completely ignoring the tidal wave of anti-trans legislation pushed by mostly Christian lawmakers and Evangelical-backed political groups this year, and frequently justified with religious language. Her beliefs also do not lead her to include any queer voices at Restore 2023, and only one person who is known to be LGBTQ+ affirming (Jenai Auman30). And I’m unaware of a queer voice having ever joined her on her podcast, except the aforementioned “ex-gay” voices.
It will likely hurt me and hurt the conference.
Remember, “It” is “Celeste publishing Roys’ own words and corrections to Roys’ misinformation”. Nothing more than what you’ve already read, in which I’ve tried hard to be fair, or even generous in my writing, while still reporting the truth. But here she says that would hurt her. And yes, people being more aware of her published statements would be a negative in some circles. But Roys has repeatedly spoken out against this kind of “blame the reporter” argument, so it was stunning to me to see her deploy it with me.
I don't think that's your objective. But as you say, impact and intention are not the same thing.
When I said “impact and intention” are not the same thing, I mean that we are responsible for both. In this case, yes - there is some chance that me reporting this will mean the conference cannot go forward. That’s not for me to decide, and will depend entirely on how Julie Roys chooses to respond, and how attendees and speakers choose whether or not this decision affects their decisions to go like it has mine (I’ll have more to say to attendees and speakers at the end of this).
Just so you know, I started Restore simply because my heart broke for the church refugees I met during my reporting, and I felt God prompting me to create a safe space where they could gather and He could minister to them. I think you experienced it as a safe place yourself, and I think you would again. The consistent message I've heard from people who have attended has been how unique and special Restore is. Even Diane Langberg told me she's never experienced a conference quite like it.
This is effectively “think of all the good I/The Conference have done.” Many of those Roys has exposed as abusive have used exactly this argument “does one bad act undo a lifetime of serving and building Jesus’ church?” And there is no way Roys would accept that.
But here’s what’s more important: my goal in coming to Roys was to help her make her reporting and conference better. Langberg says she’s never experienced a conference quite like it? Great! That’s a good base to build on. Find more people to include, just like Roys’ effort to include more speakers of color at the conference this year after receiving (accurate) feedback last year that it was too white-centered. Why can’t she included queer voices as well? Excluding them isn’t “not taking a position”, it’s taking an explicit position. And Roys did not say, “I’d love to but I don’t know who would be a good speaker.” For that, there’s any number of queer Christians who have spoken at similar events in the past, and even more who would do a phenomenal job of it. And just a few weeks ago, she announced an additional list of speakers for the conference - again, no queer or even queer-affirming speakers. Not one.
Which is why there is no chance I could experience the conference as “safe” again this year. Last year I was male-presenting, and I loved the conference, despite having already began exploring my gender identity privately, and having to hide that. But this year, as an out trans lesbian, knowing at least one speaker (Roys) has referred to trans women as “biological males” in the last month? And that that speaker was the one who chose all the other speakers, only one of whom is someone I’d trust to have my back? Absolutely not. I’d be on edge the entire time.31
I think it would be really sad if the conference ends. But I also am not willing to go through what I went through last spring again. A person can only take so much.
And here, Roys effectively says “If you do this, I’ll cancel the conference.” That’s externalizing her decisions onto me, which is absolutely not fair to me. I have no power to cancel the conference, or really anything. I also clearly gave Roys a way to deal with this - recommending that she address the false statements publicly.
But (and I hate that I have to say this), the last two sentences surprised me even more. “what I went through last spring” and “A person can only take so much.” This was centering herself in the issues about “Sarah” last spring (see footnote 8), and portraying what happened as something she went through, not something she had apologized for. It should be obvious to readers: having to apologize for one wrong thing you did, does not absolve you of having to apologize for other wrong things you did.
Also, at this point, I had not brought up any threat to the conference, or suggestion that she cancel it. She had published dangerously incorrect information about LGBTQ+ people and treatment of them, much of which was still published. And the only thing she could deflect with was “I might not still think that.” I strongly believe that if someone believes they were stating harmful things, they owe it to those listening to correct their previous statements, and apologize for the harm done. But Roys has not done this, and when it was suggested that she should, she implied that shining light on her past statements would harm her and her conference. That is not the way of integrity and accountability.
Where do we go from here?
I don’t control what people do with this information, but I’ve worked as hard as I possibly can to present it dispassionately and with grace. Julie Roys is a person and a Christian. The Roys Report has done important work. But “think of all the good they’ve done” is a classic defense for bad behavior. I hope you agree that I have demonstrated that Roys has:
Spread dangerous misinformation
Spoken extremely harshly of the LGBTQ+ community
Refused to retract it or apologize publicly
Tried to convince me to stay silent about it
I personally do not want any kind of outrage mob, and want everyone to be respectful and remember Roys’ humanity as they digest and discuss this.
My Hope
For Julie
Julie -
Just this week, you promoted Russell Moore’s32 new book, publishing Bob Smietana’s article titled: “In New Book, Russell Moore Urges Evangelicals to Stop Lying & Come Back to Jesus”. I couldn’t agree more. Truth is critically important, even when uncomfortable.
I hope that you will choose to apologize for your past actions and words, including revising or removing the many linked articles and tweets I shared here (and there is much more I haven’t linked). I hope that you will commit to making both your reporting and your conference more inclusive of LGBTQ+ people who have suffered and even died as a result of hate from Christians33. There is still time for you to add a queer34 voice to your conference. And this can all be done without you affirming LGBTQ+ people. You just have to commit to speak truthfully about us, including coverage of when treatment of us goes much too far. Maybe that’s something you build to over time - I don’t know. I get that Rome isn’t built in a day.
And if you do those things, I’d actually look forward to attending and hoping to build bridges with people who might not have heard my perspective before, or maybe even ever met a transgender person. There is still time.
And finally: Julie, you’re beloved by God. You’re safe in the grace of Christ. Nothing in this could possibly change that. Please, please don’t lose sight of that. The verse that has let me do more hard things than any other is 1 Peter 1:13 (CEB): Therefore, once you have your minds ready for action and you are thinking clearly, place your hope completely on the grace that will be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed.
The grace of Christ is our hope, nothing else. Your hope, and mine as well.
For attendees of Restore and supporters of The Roys Report
I hope you’ll take this all in the spirit in which I have written it. I hope you’ll listen and take seriously the stories of queer people who have been destroyed by Christians. And I hope you’ll see how Roys has treated us, her lack of commitment to the truth regarding queer people, and her lack of interest when it’s queer people being abused. And I hope, for you, that Roys chooses the way of integrity and accountability in this.
If she does not, then I ask that you carefully consider whether it’s appropriate to support someone who speaks this way about LGBTQ+ people.
Closing
I’ve worked to write this for much of the year, doing almost all the research myself, but consulting with a few friends along the way to make sure that I wasn’t overreacting (or underreacting). My goals were simple:
Correct Julie Roys’ misinformation about queer people, particularly trans people.
Ensure that queer people and allies are aware of Roys’ history and present
Do it in a way that extends grace and invites growth.
I hope I have done that.
Julie Roys has previously chosen to speak publicly about LGBTQ+ people. And when she did, she said some truly harmful things. If she would like to no longer speak on them, I strongly believe she needs to apologize and correct the incorrect things, while removing or correcting previous statements she’s made. Repentance does not only require that we cease harm, but also make things right. This is a consistent theme of the work of so many who speak out against abuse in the church, including those who will be at her conference. I hope very much that she chooses to do this. And Julie, if there is any way I can help you better understand LGBTQ+ people, you know where to find me.
Much love to you all,
Celeste Irwin
(@CelesteFinally on Twitter/Threads, @CelesteIrwin.bsky.social on Blue Sky)
Epilogue: Remember you are loved
Those who have followed my blog know that I don’t like to leave a hard post abruptly, but rather call us back to love and hope. So, friend - no matter how you’re feeling at the moment - you’re loved. If you need to hear it from someone, there it is.
To my queer friends particularly - you are so, so wonderful. As my friend Billie Hoard has been teaching me, you show God’s creativity just by being you. You don’t deserve the hate that so many are throwing at you. And you deserve justice. And you deserve love. I hope that the broader reaction to this post doesn’t get ugly, but it could (because Twitter). Please do what you need to do to protect your peace and health.
So to all of you, find some hope today. Hug someone if you can, even if it’s an emoji hug. Let someone know how much they mean to you. Console someone who needs it, or let someone console you. Let’s all be that amazing body of Christ, building itself up in love.
Additionally, I’ve previously been cited twice by The Roys Report.
Roys says she hopes she will be received as a friend by the subjects of her own reporting, citing Proverbs 27:6 (“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy”). This rarely happens, but I share that hope.
If I find myself the subject of a report like this in the future, I hope I have the humility to accept those wounds from friends, correct my error, and work to repair the harm done.
Were it not for Roys herself being the subject of this article, I hope my approach, style, and care would all make her proud.
Side note: Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg’s book “On Repentance and Repair” is the best treatment I’ve ever seen on the subject.
We exchanged several emails as I inquired about her willingness to dialogue. Eventually, after she stated an openness to listening, I sent her an email on March 17th outlining the problems with her coverage on trans suicidality, conversion therapy, bathroom safety, sports, and theology around LGBTQ+ issues. This email clocked in at over 8,000 words with over 50 citations. Roys asked no follow-up questions, leading me to believe it was clear, but also declined to address any of it publicly. I do not plan to share it publicly, but Roys is welcome to share our correspondence in full if she believes it to be relevant.
This was true. In 2020, Roys published an article about Daniel Lavery, a transgender man, in which she would not refer to him by his new name and he/him pronouns. She had previously discussed pronouns in a twitter thread here in which she says that “My point is that the belief that someone inwardly can be a different sex than he/she is biologically is not compatible with Christianity/Bible.”
The original article by reporter Bob Smietana named Daniel Lavery correctly and used he/him pronouns for him. The Roys Report re-published the article (now deleted, so this link is via Internet Archive), but included Lavery’s deadname. After pushback, Roys explained the reasoning and a new policy for references to transgender individuals in a now deleted article that can be read on the Internet Archive. The article included a footnote linking to TRR’s policy at the time (now deleted, but captured here by Twitter user @sunny_in_MN, in April 2021), which Roys said was the same as WORLD Magazine and the Christian Post. The new policy would avoid any use of pronouns, but respect the current name. But it was so extreme as to edit even actual quotes from people talking about the transgender person. For example, Nicole Cliffe is quoted as saying “(Lavery’s) entire family, extended relatives, there’s no one left. (Lavery) put (Lavery’s) whole life aside to attempt to protect children.” Roys’ policy was driven by her personal views, which she explains in that policy. She also had previously sharply disagreed with Pastor JD Greear who argued for pronoun hospitality. Roys agreed with Rod Dreher calling Greear’s position, “operating from a position of strength, but surrendering anyway”, and then added, “Sigh”. She deleted that tweet after I pointed it out to her, but has not deleted the subsequent reply in which she said that using someone’s pronouns would be, “participating in someone’s deception.”
Professor Grace Lavery (married to Daniel Lavery), did publish a tweet prior to the publishing of this article saying: “If [Julie Roys] needs to misgender us to get the story out, she has my permission to do so.” (I believe Grace Lavery is also transgender). In the replies, she expresses disapproval of Roys’ policy, while encouraging her to publish. That said, I never saw Roys cite this permission in defense of her policy, and she didn’t “like” the tweet, so it’s unclear to me if she ever saw it. Either way, this is another reason this part of the history is in this footnote - it was clearly somewhat complicated.
Roys shared publicly that she had switched to AP style on March 29th and January 31st. She had shared this with me privately in December, which I then shared publicly on December 16th, 2022. In her January 31st reply to Krispin Mayfield, she also expressed that she wished she had been tagged on the thread, but I had tagged her on one piece of in December 2022, as well as encouraging her to share the update publicly.
The Roys Report had previously cited me twice in its reporting, prior to my transition. At my request, after my transition in January, she did remove one reference and update my name in the other, which I do appreciate.
I’ve linked them throughout this article, but have also taken screenshots of all of it. I do encourage deleting these historical tweets and articles (and many more that I did not include here). But I did not want there to be any dispute over what was and wasn’t said.
Now deleted article: The Heresy that Fuels Transgenderism, originally published in 2017, and was still published as of September 30th, 2021, deleted sometime before March 2022.
What does this mistreatment look like? Among other things:
Lying
Spreading misinformation about LGBTQ+ people (e.g., “they’re pedophiles”)
Constructing narratives about individual people (e.g., “they’re gay because they were abused by their father.”
Misgendering/deadnaming transgender people, or refusing to refer to a same-sex spouse as a spouse/wife/husband.
Pressure not to be LGBTQ+
Speaking from the pulpit or other resources about how LGBTQ+ people must turn away from their “lifestyle.”
Denying membership or leadership positions to LGBTQ+ people.
Demanding that LGBTQ+ people seek out forms of conversion therapy
Parents refusing to go to children’s same-sex weddings
Parents evicting their teenagers from the house for being queer
Using the Bible to do it
Using specific interpretations of passages in order to call queer people “abominations.”
Saying “The Bible is clear…” when there’s thousands of years of debate.
Misrepresenting queer people in order to say they are violating some Christian belief.
Withholding Support
Treating anyone affirming similar to the queer person. This ensures that fewer people will be affirming, decreasing support for queer people.
Examples:
I hope it’s self-evident that sexism is still alive and well in many patriarchal churches. But for one particular example, John Piper once said women’s brains are “weaker” than men’s based only on 1 Peter 3:7.
Racism (and even slavery) used to be justified by various theological arguments. Today’s it’s more subtle, but see Jenai Auman’s excellent essay on “A culture of othering” for how racial bias still impacts minorities today.
Ableism is *still* justified theologically, particularly when telling those with depression or anxiety that they just “don’t trust God enough”, or when telling those with chronic illness or compromised health that they somehow don’t trust or love God enough because they won’t come to church on Sunday.
Classism is seen much more commonly in theological streams that push some form of prosperity gospel, but there’s still plenty of churches that see those who are more “successful” as “more holy”, even if no one is willing to say it quite that way. “God’s really blessed them.” I’m currently learning much more about this in Kevin Nye’s excellent book Grace Can Lead Us Home: A Christian Call To End Homelessness.
Antisemitism was justified from the Bible centuries. For the worst example, see this article about Martin Luther’s antisemitism and how it laid the groundwork for the holocaust. David Gushee writes at length about this in his book Changing Our Mind, in which he argues that someday we will look back at anti-queer views in the church the same way we look at antisemitism now.
Last spring, Roys committed to reaching out to her publisher to address the telling of her story with a young woman she refers to by the pseudonym “Sarah.” Roys describes an inappropriate (non-sexual) relationship with Sarah. I won’t recount it, but this was the subject of much discussion (and here and here and more) in spring 2022, and the discussion resulted in her decision to not to personally host or be present at Restore 2022 in May. At time of writing, no updates have been made to the book, a fact Julie acknowledged in her final email to me on March 18th when I brought this up.
Roys has the date wrong - the study was in 2011, but it covered data collected from 1983-2003.
She cites the same study in her now-deleted article “The Heresy that Fuels Transgenderism”
I have upcoming articles about what transition looks like for minors. For now, please see Julia Serano’s outstanding piece on the scientific backing for gender affirming care for youth. In short, it is well studied, well supported, and carefully administered care.
If I am reading Roys’ book right, she may have experienced same-sex attraction at some point in the past (in particular, her story with “Sarah” involves her speaking a bit vaguely of some kind of attraction):
I wasn’t the only straight person who ever got sucked into her emotional vortex, and I thank God my relationship with Sarah never developed into anything physical. To this day I’m not even sure how to describe that relationship. But the experience made me suspect that all the categories of attraction our culture has so skillfully created aren’t nearly as cut-and-dried as everyone thinks.
Roys, Julie. Redeeming the Feminine Soul (p. 24). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.
But she is now happily married to a man. I fully affirm her choices and experience and would never take anything from it. I affirm the experience of anyone who detransitions or chooses to live in celibacy or a heterosexual marriage if that is their conviction.
But I reject their right to pressure others to do the same.
Exodus International was once a leading practitioner of conversion therapy. It shut down permanently in 2013.
I don’t love “guilt by association”, but in this case, it’s clear that Roys and Edward have a multi-year relationship that continues even into April of this year. If nothing else, it makes it difficult to believe that Roys’ relative silence on her own views of LGBTQ+ people is the result in a change of personal beliefs.
In 2018, Roys spoke at the Restored Hope Network conference, “Hope 2018”. The video has been deleted.
Roys also wrote an article criticizing ReVoice, a conference for Side B LGBTQ+ Christians - those who identify as same-sex attracted, but choose to remain celibate or enter into a heterosexual marriage.
I originally planned to compare some similar events, but there’s no way to do it without it looking like “cherry picking”.
The trans community advises against the use of the word “transgenderism.” It’s not a theory like “capitalism”. Trans people exist, and using the word “transgenderism” or “gender ideology” today implies that it is a philosophical belief or a lifestyle. On the other hand, at the time Roys wrote this, the word was still broadly used, and I don’t hold it against her that she used it.
The women are:
Rebekah Mui (penetration as power in the 1st Century)
Dr. Laura Robinson (all of it); and then in a very long-form and excellent review series that starts here.
Amie (how wrong it is to refer to a woman’s reproductive anatomy as “her Most Holy Place”)
Christa Brown (how this theology leads to sexual abuse)
Christy Hemphill (Metaphor Theory)
And yours truly, on the article’s implications for LGBTQ+ individuals.
Vines is the author of God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case for Same-sex Relationships.
Roys cites a list compiled by Liberty Counsel, which has been named a hate group by the SPLC. It’s closely affiliated with Liberty University, as the founder was the co-founder of the Liberty University School of Law in 2004. As of its last edit in 2017, it had 63 links (not all of which are specific incidents) covering a timespan of 2008-2016, so nine years, across the entire United States (seven per year, but almost certainly non-exhaustive). It actually shows that incidents like this happened in states with and without laws stating that restroom use is governed by gender identity. The incidents as described were bad, but the common theme across many of them is a “man disguised himself as a woman and entered a woman’s space”. In some cases, they didn’t even disguise themselves - they just walked in. But as I said in my previous article, the problem with using this to ban trans women, is that it means you have to accept trans men into those spaces. And it’s much easier for a cis man to say “I’m a trans man”, than to pretend to be a woman.
I first learned about this almost by happenstance. I was watching a video by YouTube creator “Shaun” about Kellie-Jay Keen (aka Posie Parker), and he brought up the connection with Kaeley Triller Harms, at about the 34:04 timestamp in this video. Shaun jumps away from Harms at about 36:30, but then comes back to talk more about her at ~37:30, and finally ends around 39:04.
I’ve changed three things from an earlier version of this article, after Harms disagreed with my reporting.
I originally characterized Harms’ actions as “abuse” - I’ve removed that.
I originally said that the minor was someone she met while working at the YMCA - that was citing Wikipedia, but Wikipedia’s sources don’t support that. I’ve changed the language around where she was working to match her own statement.
And finally, I had a footnote relating to the characterization of the police’s decision. I’ve removed it, as it was unnecessary speculation.
Roys begins chapter seven by misgendering a trans teenage boy twenty times in two paragraphs, despite the sentence I’ve marked in bold. While Roys now follows AP Stylebook, even if she did not, this passage (and later) is just so hard to read and just doesn’t need to do this. More references to “the student” or “the individual” or “this person” would have been better.
“We need to move beyond the gender binary,” stated a self-identified transgender student at the public high school in suburban Chicago where my husband, Neal, taught for nearly thirty years. The comment capped an hour-long program where several students who identified as either gay or transgender shared their truly heartrending stories to garner support for the LGBTQ cause.
This particular student told of a home life that was horrific. Her father reportedly abused her mother, and as a result her mother drank excessively and spoke regularly about taking her own life. The student recalled one morning when her mother repeatedly screamed that she wanted to kill herself. Wanting to escape, the girl stood outside her house, longing for the screaming threats to stop. When they finally did, she pleaded with her mom, “Next time you want to scream about killing yourself, can you just wait until I leave the house?”
The girl was experiencing excruciating pain and said she no longer wanted to identify as a girl. She wrapped her chest daily with an ACE bandage to conceal her breasts and then requested that everyone call her by a boy’s name. To identify her as a girl caused her profound emotional trauma. The student expressed deep gratitude to a teacher who complied with her request and regularly referred to her as a boy. She, and other students who identified as LGBTQ, held this teacher up as a role model for others to emulate.
Roys, Julie. Redeeming the Feminine Soul (pp. 105-106). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.
Roys then spends several pages discussing how her own gender expression as a child and teenager needed “gentle rebuke” from her sisters and mother to get her to dress and act appropriately feminine. She states that she has never experienced gender dysphoria, but then goes on for quite some time with a story that is seemingly meant to show she can relate to the experience of a trans kid because she also didn’t conform to stereotypes. This misunderstands what being transgender is.
She comes back to the transgender boy at the end of the chapter, misgendering him another twenty times:
Recently, I Googled the self-identified transgender student who spoke at my husband’s school’s Transgender Lunch-n-Learn. She now looks very much like a he. She has facial hair and is undergoing hormone therapy. She has had her breasts removed and is anticipating getting complete sex-change surgery as soon as she has the money. “I was just born in the wrong body,” she said.
I felt so much sadness over this young woman’s bodily transformation. I don’t believe she was born in the wrong body. God doesn’t make mistakes; we do. I don’t know all the factors that caused this young woman to despise her femininity, but clearly her self-directed misogyny was intense. She said at one point that she hated her female body so much she attempted suicide. I couldn’t help but wonder if observing her mother’s abuse contributed to this woman’s aversion to the feminine. I also wondered how things might have been different had she known Christ. What if she had been affirmed in her identity as a child of God and had truly experienced how much God loves her feminine body and her feminine soul? What if she had been encouraged to follow a Christian map of reality as opposed to a postmodern one?
Roys, Julie. Redeeming the Feminine Soul (pp. 122-123). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.
Roys here makes hypotheses about this man’s psychological state. It’s worth saying: Roys has no formal training in psychology or transgender medical care. And this is consistent with my experience coming out as a trans woman. I’ve had plenty of people try to tell me their ideas for why I feel gender dysphoria, instead of actually just listening to me. It’s an experience many abuse survivors would be familiar with: it’s exhausting to not be considered the expert on your own story.
Both McKnight and Barringer have previously promoted Preston Sprinkle’s anti-trans book Embodied.
A brief note on this. Yes - I did generally experience it as one of the safest places I’d ever processed the spiritual abuse I’d been subjected to. It was the first place I’d been where I *knew* that if I told people what I’d been through, they would believe me, and probably could relate. Many of them had far worse stories than I did - particularly those women who were survivors of sexual abuse.
But another part was less safe. By May 2022, I had started to figure out that I was transgender. I hadn’t shaved my beard yet, but I had been growing my hair out. I actually got my first haircut of the year right before Restore because I was worried it looked too awful. It was sad to me, as I was so eager for it to get longer (still am). I remember a friend praising me at Restore for how I conducted myself as a man on Twitter, particularly my sensitivity. And part of me appreciated it, but another part of me, that I couldn’t show, felt like I’d been punched (friend - I know you meant well and had no idea what I was feeling - thank you for your kind words).
Which is all to say: I was in the closet. And I did not feel safe to bring that part of me to the conference. And as I left, I knew I might not be able to go back if I transitioned.
From the AP Stylebook - note that Roys is not using it in a “medical or scientific context”.
biological A word often best confined to medical or scientific contexts, especially in stories or passages about gender. While sex is a biological feature, terms like biological male, man, female or woman are sometimes used by opponents of transgender rights to portray sex as more simplistic than scientists assert, and to downplay the significance of gender and how it differs from sex.
Disclosure - Jenai Auman is a friend.
For what? For quotes like this from Michael J. Kruger’s book Bully Pulpit on spiritual abuse:
[A report from the Evangelical Alliance in the UK] reviews a number of legal cases where the term spiritual abuse is being applied (wrongly) to legitimate church functions. For example, if a pastor declares certain controversial behaviors to be sinful (for example, homosexuality), then some have insisted this is a form of spiritual abuse.
Moore himself also has a history of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric.
For a particularly tragic example: earlier this year, a prominent Evangelical author posted something highly transphobic. They were told it was not ok by many, including me, but refused to take it down. Within the next several days, a non-binary person died by suicide. In their note, they expressed feeling betrayed by the author.
Was that the only reason? No. It was one paragraph in a very long note. But betrayal hurts badly. The exact same action done by someone you know is unsafe, vs. someone you thought was safe, will feel completely different. Jennifer Freyd’s book “Blind to Betrayal” chronicles all the different ways that betrayal trauma harms people much worse than any normal trauma.
One of the reasons I felt compelled to speak on this was because I do not want a queer person who has been abused to go to Roys with their story, only to be turned away or even told their treatment was good. That would be phenomenally dangerous. Seeing the suicide note from earlier this year was what made me feel so much like I had to inform the community of Roys’ past, as difficult as that is.
Please note - I do not mean someone who is a Side B advocate. This should be a Christian who respects and affirms queer people’s existence and lives.