Idea: Jordan grants himself leeway to analyze religion as fluid and non binary but not gender expression/identity
When it comes to questions like do you believe in God? or wad Christ born of a virgin? he grants himself leeway and rejects the rigid non binary of yes/no.
He rejects the literalist interpretations of these questions and many other in the religious realm and treats as an evolving multilayered reality.
When it comes to gender identity expressed through fluidity he he quite literal. Despite both being subjective. While biological sex is a reality, gender expression, much like sexuality, is fluid. He grants people and seems to accept homosexuality and bisexuality without argument.
He grants himself the post modern freedom to analyze religion in his terms of abstract metaphors but won't grant others the same freedom when it comes to gender expression and identity also being abstract.
The objective biology and subjective value division between religion and gender identity falls apart under examination. As both sit at the crossroads of biology, culture, and psychology. If he can turn a literal diety into an abatract evolving metaphor, why can't gender expression and identity be granted thr same leeway?
what do you think?