Reading the Rainbows

What do teens do when they realize they might be queer (LGBTQ+) and are also part of a faith community? There's a general belief that you can't be both: That embracing a queer identity means rejecting religion, and vice versa. While this is a myth--many queer persons are deeply religious--the expectations and the experiences of queer youth in Christian contexts is most commonly one of rejection. How do queer youth navigate this? In this episode we share research on the experiences of queer youth as they explore whether they can integrate their queer and religious identities. We discover some expected and also some surprising and hopeful responses.

How do you know your gender? Is it something you learn from others? Something that is hardwired into your brain from the beginning? Is gender identity something tightly connected to to your biological sex, or can it vary independently of sex? These questions become concrete when someone's experience and expression of gender differs from what we expect. This episode, co-hosted by Jonathan Sieswerda, introduces the research into the biology and neuroscience of gender identity.

We casually toss around words like "gay," "straight,", "bi," and "ace" and use them as touchstones or calls to arms in our culture wars around sexual diversity. We often act as if we all know and agree on what these terms mean. And regularly we bolster our own positions with claims about what "scientists say." So what do "scientists say" about sexual orientation? In this three-part series, I examine the challenges of defining what sexual orientation is for research purposes (part A), what the research tells us about the causes and consequences of variations in sexual orientation (part B), and both how and whether we can use this research as we engage in conversations around sexual diversity.

The theme to the 1970s sitcom All in the Family, "Those Were the Days," is a lament for a time when, supposedly, a clear sex and gender binary existed and everyone conformed: "Girls were girls and men were men." What does the science say about these binaries? Are they real? Universal? Unchanging? In this series of three episodes, I explore three common arguments in support of a binary view of sex and of gender: Sexual reproduction requires two sexes contributing in unique ways (Part A); there are obvious physical and behavioral differences between females and males (Part B); and human societies are built on a binary female/male foundation (Part C). What does the evidence say? Are these binaries indeed "facts of nature," and if so, to what extent?

The theme to the 1970s sitcom All in the Family, "Those Were the Days," is a lament for a time when, supposedly, a clear sex and gender binary existed and everyone conformed: "Girls were girls and men were men." What does the science say about these binaries? Are they real? Universal? Unchanging? In this series of three episodes, I explore three common arguments in support of a binary view of sex and of gender: Sexual reproduction requires two sexes contributing in unique ways (Part A); there are obvious physical and behavioral differences between females and males (Part B); and human societies are built on a binary female/male foundation (Part C). What does the evidence say? Are these binaries indeed "facts of nature," and if so, to what extent?

Conversations about sexual and gender diversity often become emotionally heated. Christians especially struggle with the apparent tensions between the call to holiness and the call to hospitality, and the emotions of disgust and empathy seem to pull us in opposing directions. In these two episodes, I explore the emotional psychology around disgust and empathy, which are strongly involved in our conversations about sexuality and gender. These emotions serve important functions, but how do we navigate them in ways that enable constructive dialogue and sustainable communities in the face of diversity? Can Jesus serve as a model for how to bring both holiness and hospitality together?

When we have conversations about sexual and gender diversity we can quickly become emotional and defensive. We are often baffled how other people can think so differently than we do about these topics. Why is this? In this series of five short episodes, I explore some of the psychological dynamics that can get in the way when we try to stay at the table and have constructive dialogue. In this final episode of five, I connect our mental shortcuts and emotions with our moral foundations, and explore how this interaction affects about ability to talk with people who have diverse ideas about sexuality and gender.

When we have conversations about sexual and gender diversity we can quickly become emotional and defensive. We are often baffled how other people can think so differently than we do about these topics. Why is this? In this series of five short episodes, I explore some of the psychological dynamics that can get in the way when we try to stay at the table and have constructive dialogue. In this third episode, I talk about how our minds ensure that we preserve the categories we have learned, and help us defend our beliefs.

When we have conversations about sexual and gender diversity we can quickly become emotional and defensive. We are often baffled how other people can think so differently than we do about these topics. Why is this? In this and the next four episodes, I explore some of the psychological dynamics that can get in the way when we try to stay at the table and have constructive dialogue. This first episode introduces the problem, and describes how our minds engage the world and new ideas.

What does it mean to "read the rainbows?" In this episode I explain how this metaphor supports the goals and spirit of this podcast.