The Sangha of Bodhinyana Monastery has asked me to give an overview of the ordination of transgender people according to the Pali Vinaya, in particular, whether such ordination is likely to be valid. To fulfil that task, I have written the short essay below. Anyone who wishes is most welcome to provide constructive feedback on this draft. I do appreciate your support!
Update: My apologies for restricting access to my article over the past couple of days. I was told that some of the vocabulary I had used was inappropriate and potentially harmful to trans people. This issue has now hopefully been rectified. I have also updated some other aspects of the essay. Once again, I am keen to receive further feedback, especially on issues that concern the Vinaya. Thank you!
I have been asked to give an overview of how the Vinaya sees the ordination of transgender people, in particular, whether such ordination can be inferred as acceptable. Before I start the discussion, however, I need to briefly define a transgender person.
Here is the definition from OED:
Transgender: denoting or relating to a person whose gender identity does not correspond with the sex registered for them at birth.
For instance, a trans man is a person who is assigned as female at birth, but who experiences a misalignment between his internal experience of gender, which is male, and his physical form and social experience, which is typically female. As a consequence of this mismatch, he may choose to affirm his gender, either socially or medically, so as to align his physical appearance and social experience more closely with his gender identity. Or he may choose not to undergo such treatment. In either case, he is classed as a trans person.
It seems unlikely that any kind of significant gender-affirming medical treatment was available in ancient India.[1] I will therefore take the conservative position and assume it was not. This leaves us with trans people who have not had such treatment. There seems to be no reason to think that such people have not always existed, including at the time of the Buddha. If the Vinaya speaks of trans people at all, we will therefore assume it speaks of this category of people.
What evidence, if any, is there for trans people in the Vinaya Piṭaka? To start with, they do not seem to be spoken of as a class. The Vinaya contains references to various classes of people, defined by their sexual characteristics or behaviour, such as the paṇdaka and the ubhatobyañjanaka, neither of which group refers to or includes trans people. The paṇḍakas were probably a social category that existed in ancient India, for which there is no obvious counterpart today. The ubhatobyañjanakas seem to have been partly or wholly mythological and quite likely never referred to actual people.[2]
Then there is the term vepurisikā, found in the Bhikkhunī-kkhandhaka (Kd 20) as part of a list of questions asked of an ordination candidate,[3] and which I have rendered “manlike (woman)”. What exactly this expression refers to is a matter of speculation. Yet it is certainly possible it could refer to a trans man, that is, to a person registered as female at birth but who psychologically identifies as a man. The commentary, however, says otherwise:
Vepurisikāti samassudāṭhikā purisarūpā itthī.
“Vepurisikā means a woman who has the appearance of a man, including a beard and a moustache.” (Sp 1.285)
I am not aware of any other terms or expressions in the Canon that might refer to trans people. It seems, then, that although trans people must have existed at the time, they were not regarded as a group that required special attention in the Vinaya. This in turn would seem to imply that they were not singled out, but rather ordained without much controversy. If this is so, how exactly, if at all, does the ordination procedure relate to trans people?
The process of ordination, both for bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs, contains a section where the applicant is asked a series of questions to ascertain their suitability for ordination. One of these questions is relevant to the discussion of trans people, namely, the question about the person’s gender. Here it is, as found in context in the ordination procedure for both bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs:
“The one who is giving the full ordination should ask about thirteen obstacles. It should be done like this: ‘Do you have any of these diseases: leprosy, abscesses, mild leprosy, tuberculosis, or epilepsy? Are you human? Are you a man? …” (Kd 1:76.1.8)
“The nun who is giving the full ordination should ask about twenty-four obstacles. And it should be done like this: ‘Do you lack genitals? … Do you have any of these diseases: leprosy, abscesses, mild leprosy, tuberculosis, or epilepsy? Are you human? Are you a woman? …” (Kd 20:17.1.9)
We want to focus on the two questions that concern gender. But first of all, as can be seen above, it is useful to note that these questions are part of a series of questions, all needing to be answered by the candidate. Some of these questions relate to qualities that bar the candidate from ordination, others not. For instance, if the candidate is not human, then, according to Kd 1, they are barred from ordination.[4] If they get ordained by accident, they are to be expelled. A person’s gender, in contrast, is never said to be a disqualifying criterion. In other words, if a woman happens to be ordained as a bhikkhu by the bhikkhu Sangha, then the ordination is still valid.[5] This is so regardless of whether the monks concerned knew that she was a woman, either before or after the ordination procedure.[6]
It is rather striking, in fact, that there is no origin story behind the question of the candidate’s gender. All the other questions in the ordination ceremony come with an origin story that is recorded in the Vibhaṅga, the only exception being the gender question. This may suggest a number of things—for instance, that the question of gender was a late addition to the Canonical text—but at the very least it points to the question of gender being seen as less significant than the other questions asked. One gets the impression that the tradition paid less attention to it.
This supposition is reinforced by the commentarial treatment of this question. The question is not mentioned at all in the Samantapāsādikā, the main Vinaya commentary, nor is there any definition of “man” or “woman” in the context of ordination. Again, this suggests that the issue of trans people was not regarded as a significant matter. Even in the sub-commentaries the question “are you a man?” is merely mentioned in passing (Vajirabuddhiṭīkā, 3.125), but no definition is given.
It may perhaps be objected that the issue of transgender people was not seen as significant because gender was regarded purely as physical. Yet the reality is that it is not always easy to distinguish men and women from each other simply on the basis of appearance. Both men and women can be androgynous, largely erasing any clear distinction between them based on external signs. This means that even if they regarded gender as entirely about external appearance, it would still not be obvious in all cases which candidates were men and which women. This leads us to the next point.
The Vinaya does not describe any way of validating a person’s answer to the gender question: the candidate is simply asked whether they are a man or a woman. It is up to the individual to decide how this is to be answered, and the answer must, it seems, be taken at face value. This is especially relevant in the case of an androgynous person, in which case the Sangha would have to rely on the ordination candidate’s answer. This opens up the possibility for a trans person to answer the gender question according to their own conscience. If they identify as a man, then, regardless of their physical appearance, they may feel it is appropriate to call themselves male. It may therefore be acceptable for a trans man or woman to answer the question “are you a man/woman?” according to their psychological identity, and moreover, that it is acceptable for the Sangha to accept this answer without further investigation and regardless of how they may perceive the person.
In reality, of course, there are all sorts of practical questions that need to be considered. For instance, it may be difficult, for whatever reason, cultural or otherwise, to ordain a trans man who appears very feminine. The local Sangha will then have to decide what will work in their context. It is the prerogative of the local Sangha to make such decisions.[7] At the same time, it is the role of the Sangha to lead the Buddhist community in the core Buddhist values of compassion and inclusivity. If the Buddhist community is not entirely tolerant of transgender people, the Sangha has the responsibility of educating it. It is my hope that, over time, transgender people will be accepted for ordination in all Buddhist monasteries and societies. The Sangha should be as accommodating as possible of all people with sincere faith in the Dhamma and who aspire to make an end of suffering.
This accommodating approach to transgender people is reflected in one of the stories found in the case rulings in bhikkhu pārājika 1. Here is that story:
At one time a monk acquired female characteristics. They told the Buddha. “Monks, I allow that discipleship, that ordination, those years as a monk, to be transferred to the nuns. The monks’ offenses that are in common with the nuns are to be cleared with the nuns. For the monks’ offenses that are not in common with the nuns, there’s no offense.”
At one time a nun acquired male characteristics. They told the Buddha. “Monks, I allow that discipleship, that ordination, those years as a nun, to be transferred to the monks. The nuns’ offenses that are in common with the monks are to be cleared with the monks. For the nuns’ offenses that are not in common with the monks, there’s no offense.” (Bu Pj 1)
It is not entirely clear what “acquired female characteristics” and “acquired male characteristics” mean, and we will return to this shortly. Whatever it may be, it seems quite likely that we are here dealing with trans people. If what is meant is a physical change in the person, then they would presumably not have identified with their physical sex either before or after that change. If what is meant is a change in the person’s sense of identity, then again, they would presumably not have identified with their sex at some point in this process. It seems, then, that trans people were dealt with in a matter-of-fact way, and were not rejected by the Sangha.[8]
Now let us come back to the meaning of the expressions “acquired female characteristics” and “acquired male characteristics”. It is noteworthy that the Pali grammar does not say that female characteristics appeared “on” a monk, which would have required the locative case. Instead, with find the genitive/dative case, which signifies that the monk “got” these characteristics. This significantly broadens the scope for the kind of characteristics that might be referred to.
In addition, a quick look at the Canonical literature reveals that the word liṅga, “characteristic”, rarely if ever refers to genitals. Instead, it is a broad term that may refer to a variety of things, including the voice or mannerism of a person.[9] It is not implausible that it might even refer to psychological characteristics, that is, one’s sense of identity. In fact, if we try to evaluate what actually happened in the above story of monastics changing sex—assuming that it reflects a real incident—then it is not natural to interpret it as an actual physical change from one sex to another, which hardly seems possible, at least not in a clear-cut fashion. A psychological change of gender identity, however, does seem possible. It is therefore reasonable to interpret the above stories as being about psychological change. In other words, a change in gender identity may have been sufficient for a monastic to be transferred from one Sangha to the other.
So far, I have mostly concerned myself with trans people who have not had gender-affirming treatment. Let me now briefly touch on those who have had such treatment. It seems to me that such people are, if anything, even more qualified to be ordained according to their gender identity. This is simply because they are likely to exhibit more of the characteristics required to be ordained in the relevant Sangha.
Let me sum up our findings briefly, before I conclude. We have seen that there is no evidence in the Vinaya for trans people being barred from ordination, quite the contrary. The fact that there is no word or concept for trans people, nor any references to individuals with such characteristics, must mean that being trans was not seen as a problem, even in matters of ordination. The evidence from the Canon, to the extent that there is any, suggest that trans people were dealt with in a matter-of-fact manner. It seems ordination candidates may have been allowed to ordain in whichever Sangha, male or female, they most closely identified with.
In conclusion, it is impossible to make an absolute argument from a Vinaya point of view that the ordination of trans people is either allowed or prohibited. Given this ambiguous situation and given the emphasis on compassion in the Dhamma, it seems to me that transgender people who seek ordination, in either Sangha, should generally be given the benefit of the doubt.
Although, it is perhaps not as unlikely as it may at first seem. Kd 8 mentions various kinds of surgical procedures done in ancient times, including brain surgery. Certain kinds of minor gender-affirming surgery may therefore also have been possible. ↩︎
For a detailed discussion of both of these terms, see the Appendix of Technical Terms in my recent Vinaya translation. Again, neither of them has anything to do with trans people. See also Ven. Vimala’s essay Yellow Gate. ↩︎
But, interestingly, whose ordination is not invalid if they do in fact get ordained. ↩︎
To be precise, the ordination question is about whether one is a human, whereas the Vinaya lays down a rule against ordaining animals. These things are not exactly the same. ↩︎
Depending on the circumstances, she may have to transfer to the Bhikkhunī-sangha. As we shall see below, such transfer is actually described in Canonical Vinaya. ↩︎
For some this argument is likely enough to settle the question. In other words, if the question of gender is not regarded as particularly important in the Vinaya, then there is no real block to ordaining anyone of any gender into either Sangha. ↩︎
There is at least one Canonical examples of the Sangha potentially making use of this authority. See Kd 1: “On one occasion a brahmin went to the monks and asked for the going forth, but the monks declined.” No reason is given for why they declined, but the context suggests it was simply because the brahmin had not supported the monks in the past. ↩︎
The commentary too approaches sex change in a matter-of-fact way. Here is an extract from its comment on the above Canonical passage:
So ce paṭibujjhitvā attano taṃ vippakāraṃ disvā dukkhī dummano rattibhāgeyeva itarassa āroceyya, tena samassāsetabbo: hotu, mā cintayittha. Vaṭṭasseveso doso. Sammāsambuddhena dvāraṃ dinnaṃ, bhikkhu vā hotu bhikkhunī vā, anāvaṭo dhammo avārito saggamaggoti. (Sp 1.69)
↩︎"If, upon waking and having realised the transformation, that person is pained and distressed, they should inform their companion that very night. The companion should comfort them, saying: ‘Let it be; do not worry. This is the fault of the cycle of existence. The door has been opened by the Blessed One; whether one is a monk or a nun, the Dhamma is unobstructed and the path to heaven is not barred.” (Taken from Ven. Pasanna’s unpublished rendering of this commentarial passage, with some modifications.)
In particular, see its use at bhikkhu pācittiya 2 and Kd 2. ↩︎
