Transgender erva

Question

Men's Health magazine has been in the news lately because of a contest in which people can vote on who will be on the magazine's cover. Currently leading in the voting is a transgender person who was assumed to be of female gender at birth, but has since transitioned and identifies as male. There is a picture circulating of this person without a shirt. The person looks very much like a (very muscular) man, even with facial hair. So my question is, would looking at this person's male-looking chest constitute viewing erva?

That is, for the purpose of technical prohibitions involved with observing erva, does this person's body count as a female erva or not? This is a particular detail of a more general question about how Jewish law views the gender of a transgender individual, and it may well be distinct from other considerations, since it specifically concerns the body itself and observation thereof by others.

As a tack-on to this question, would looking at the chest of a person who was formerly considered male but transitioned and is now considered female be considered viewing erva?

Answer 1

The Gemara in Berachos 24a, which states that "tefach b'isha erva" (a handsbreath of uncovered skin of a woman is "erva"), explains that where one is not intending to derive pleasure, a woman's skin is erva if a tefach is uncovered in a place that is normally covered, for the purposes of davening in front of it. Meaning you cannot daven in front of a tefach of uncovered skin even if you are not intending to derive any pleasure (or even if it is your wife's skin where pleasure is permitted). Because, this rule of erva is arguably not dependent on its ability to cause pleasure (an argument can be made otherwise), I could hear that uncovered skin of a transgender man (i.e. born female) would still be problematic.

In contrast, the Gemara also states that כל המסתכל באצבע קטנה של אשה כאילו מסתכל במקום החורף. Histaklus is explained by the Tzlach (aka the Noda BeYehuda) and others as meaning gazing to derive pleasure. Therefore if one is gazing at a woman's skin, even her little finger, with intent to derive pleasure there would be an issur.

I would submit that in this case, there is no intent to derive pleasure (because the person does not appear to be female) and therefore there is no issur of histaklus.

Answer 2

First off, if you paint a house to look like a castle, it's still a house. I don't see why a woman believing herself to be a man and altering her body would halachically change that.

Whether or not it is erva, most authorities prohibit gazing at any skin of the torso and thighs that is more than a tefach, even if you're in a culture where women wear less clothes and those areas are not considered erotic. The back of a woman, for example, which looks as ordinariy as the back of a man, may not be looked at by a man, no sexual arousal needed. So the altered chest of a woman is also a problem.

Regarding a man who makes himself look like a woman, there may be a different prohibition of impure thoughts for looking at him if someone would actually find that attractive. But it would be more like looking at a nude painting as a puffed up man's chest is just a man's chest that's puffed up.