MXMFW 2: Genesis 1:27

Theo, Maggie, and Bridget ponder about what G-d's gender is, what Genesis tells us about gender and sex, whether or not Jesus was intersex,  what kind of genetics God would have if God was a biological entity, and so much more in this Episode of My Ex and My Future Wife.

Sources Referenced:
She Who Is  by Elizabeth A. Johnson
Beyond God the Father by Mary Daly*
Torah Queeries edited by Drinkwater et. al.
Radical Love  by Patrick S. Cheng
Bridget's childhood camp songs
Maggie's Pastor Dad
Theo's medical special interest
Bridget's armchair genetics degree from watching Orphan Black

*Listen to our disclaimer about Mary Daly's transphobia in the episode!

Transcript available here: https://mxmfwpod.buzzsprout.com/1759327/8511150-mxmfw-2-genesis-1-27

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Theo (singing): In the Beginning, G-d made three lesbians who liked to talk. They loved each other, and they loved G-d, but they had a few questions, and they think you might have a few questions too about religion, gay stuff, and life. So come join me, my ex, and my future wife.

Bridget: Hello, welcome to my ex and my future wife, I’m Bridget.

T: I’m Theo, I’m the ex.

Maggie: I’m Maggie, and I’m the future wife.

B: This week we are going to be talking about Genesis and where gender really came from.

T: Yeah.

B: Or, like, where gender really started.

M: What does God have to say about gender?

T: That’s the question isn’t it, and what do I have to say about gender?

M: (laughs) What do I have to say about it?

B: What does God think God’s gender is, really?

T: True

B: And how did we come to make the call that God was going to be some male type thing?

T: I mean, I think that one might be pretty clear, at least it is in my brain. But yeah, these are our questions for the episode, our many questions, as we always have.

B: And basically, like, let’s just dive in.

T: Let’s just dive in

B: Already, I’m having many thoughts, and let’s just dive in. (laughs). So, Maggie, would you do me the favor of reading that nice beginning passage of Genesis for us.

M: I would love to read this Genesis 1:27, I’m reading from the NIV translation, just a heads up: “God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them”

B: Nice.

T: I read that kind of recently, you know, without any future context—I mean past context. Anyways, when I read it, I was like, he just created Adam, and he said, “created them male and female”, so I was like, well that’s gender baby. Adam’s all of them, he got it all. So that was my first impression as I was reading it, new to the Torah/Bible, you know.

B: A lot of the times that I have had discussions about Adam’s gender, it’s kind of become apparent to me that—Okay, so it’s impossible for gender to exist if there is only one person in the world.

T: True

B: Because gender as a construct is completely relational. Gender exists, you know, it can exist on a spectrum, it can exist on a binary, but gender is meaningless in a vacuum. 

T: Correct

B: So, if there is only one person in the world, they can’t have gender because gender doesn’t mean anything if there is nothing else to measure it up against. So, I think it’s really interesting, the idea that gender didn’t exist until God created Eve, or, you know Lilith, depending on which source text you’re looking at. But we’re starting with Adam, and when we have this idea that Adam is the first man, but Adam was just the first person, and then suddenly, when Adam needed to be in relation to someone else, that’s when gender kind of stepped into the equation. I always think that’s really interesting

T: I agree. And you notice in the passage, he/him pronouns are used for God, which we will talk about extensively I’m sure, and also it does say mankind, so of course, this is getting into more stuff, obviously, this is using patriarchal normative language to write this book, to translate these words, which is why there are all these gendered terms in there. But it is interesting.

B: This is an English translation that is interpreting—So in Hebrew, I think I’m the only friend in the room with any kind of background in Hebrew.

T: Yeah, I got nothing.

B: And even my background in Hebrew is, you know, not still robust, still a little shaky.

T: I would disagree with that.

B: (laughs) Hebrew is a default male language, it’s a very gendered language, the way that a lot of non-English languages are very gendered. Hebrew has gendered numbers; Hebrew has gendered nouns. What is male is also default, so what you learn when you’re learning Hebrew as a second language is in a room—for plural—in a room where there is “women” in the room, you’re going to use the female ending to pluralize a word. But, if there 100 women and one man in the room, then you have to use the male ending because the male ending can denote not just male people, but also any combination of gendered people.

T: Yeah, that’s the way it is in Spanish, which I’m quite familiar with.

B: That’s not uncommon in language, but also the way we have interpreted male as God and mankind as male and all of these things as male. That’s a very clear choice that’s been made by theologians and translators throughout the years, and it’s very easy to interpret away from that when you’re looking especially at the word “Eloheim” which is God, which is in the plural. So, the idea that God is being translated with his/he/him pronouns, that’s a translation choice.

T: I mean, it’s clear that anybody—the fact that we do generalize in the male, like using male language and identifiers, is obviously a product of the patriarchy, and everything we’ve ever written down is a product of the patriarchy. So, clearly, this is the case, and I don’t think it necessarily holds so much meaning for what the reality of the situation actually is, do you know what I mean? Like, we can acknowledge that Adam has he/him pronouns, and God has he/him pronouns in the Bible/Torah, and also that actually means nothing about what their actual gender is, just because that is how everything was generalized because of the patriarchy. And the word “mankind” just meant “humankind”, as men was the only important thing, as we know (laughs).

M: That’s a good point, and interestingly, Bridget mentioned Eloheim? Eloheim?

B: Oh Elohim.

M: Oh Elohim, thank you—you can tell I’m not Jewish—is the Hebrew word for God that is plural, which makes sense because in verse 26 it says, “Let us make mankind in our image”. So it makes sense that God would use that plural—I don’t know, what is that—the “our” possessive plural because the concept of God in the Hebrew Bible is a plural concept.

B: This is really interesting considering the most basic and fundamental aspect of Judaism is the singularity of God, and God is consistently referred to in this kind of ambiguously plural way. Which is, you know, I think because of the ideas of us being made in the image of God, God is one, but God also has to be able to take on these many forms and many roles for us.

T: And I think it’s also interesting because what is the plural pronoun that we like to use.

M: They/Them?

T: Oh my God, is it They/Them?

M: Oh my gosh, does God use They/Them pronouns?

T: Holy shit, does God use They/Them pronouns?

M: Hot off the press y’all 

B: Wow

T: What is both the neutral and the plural, like hello, it’s clear to me. But, never mind that I’m sure

B: (laughs) Okay, this is something I want to bring up, and I promise I’m going to circle us back to Genesis 1:27, but in terms of the ways that we refer to God, and this is what I was flipping through my notebook about so wildly as we were starting our recording, God is not referred to in only one way. Something that a lot of feminist scholars and feminist theologians like to bring up is that God is occasionally as “El Shaddai”. Have either of you heard the term “El Shaddai” before?

T: I have, I have no idea what it means, but I remember hearing it.

M: Same as Theo

T: I’ve heard whatever you’re about to say before, but I don’t remember what it is because I have a horrible memory.

B: Maggie, do you remember?

M: No, I read it in a—same boat as Theo, couldn’t tell you what it means.

B: I’m a little obsessed with this one. “El Shaddai” is this weird, kind of difficult to translate term for God that has often been interpreted as like,“one who has breasts” or, like, “nurturer” in a very motherly way. (laughs) Theo stop that.

T: I’m making the fuck-boy face.

B: (laughs) Let it be known for the record. So Shaddai, just kind of means—I don’t have the power to directly translate this, but because like I said it’s kind of confusing. It has this connotation of meaning “God with breasts” or “ God who nurtures”, there’s this divine connection to breast in a way that does really exist in opposition to the idea that God is this very masculine figure.

T: Yeah.

B: Because “El Shaddai” is kind of this much more, it falls much more in line with the maternal role, not like an “Our Father” but like an “our mother” who, you know nursed us at our breasts. Not to say that masculine man can’t have breasts, they absolutely can, but in the context of Biblical history, that was probably a controversial statement. 

T: That makes sense considering things like Gaia—you know mother Earth—and there are many other female, feminine, maternal creator figures in other mythology and religion. And also, just the fact, you know, obviously this is very cis-normative, but the whole concept of birth and the womb and shit, and then obviously that’s tied to femaleness because of cis-normativity, that’s how things are created, like how people are created, is from a womb, which traditionally was tied to femaleness. So, that’s another thing where you think that creation is inherently female, if you’re looking at it from a CIS-normative lens—I feel the need to make that disclaimer over and over. So that’s interesting also, so why did we decide the creator needed to be a man? I mean obviously, it’s the patriarchy, but you know.

M: I’m currently reading, I’m gonna cite my sources Bridget, are you proud of me (laughs)

B: Ohhhhh, I’m literally just citing my notebook

M: Yeah! I’ll be citing my notebook soon. I’m reading this book called She Who Is by Elizabeth A. Johnson, and the whole is her being like: we need to talk about God in feminine terms and use she/her pronouns for God. Elizabeth talks about, she’s like: I’m not saying using masculine metaphors as Father, Son, Brother, that kind of stuff is bad, I’m just saying that limits God. If we are thinking of God as this plural being that both men and women are created in the image of, referring to God only as masculine, it just limits God, and there is so much more to God. In enforcing the patriarchy, we miss out on this whole part of God, and that’s just a huge bummer.

T: I enjoy that a lot, that’s one of my pronouns to use is “they” just cause it’s neutral.

B: A really interesting note on the translation is that the more recent prayer books published in the Reform movement for the past several years have actually alternated between he/him and she/her pronouns for God.

T: That is interesting.

B: Yeah, it’s a really interesting choice, but that’s been—I hope I’m remembering that correctly, I think I’m remembering that correctly, but I haven’t been to physical synagogue in forever.

T: Send us an email if Bridget is not remembering correctly, just kidding, please don’t.

B: I feel like I have a pretty clear memory of that. Something also in response to what you just said, Maggie. I’m sure you’ve heard this because it’s a really common thing to hear when you’re reading feminist theology: “If God is male, male is God”

M: By our favorite transphobe Mary Daly.

B: Is she the best? Thank you for citing my source, I’m never going to remember.

M: You don’t need to, she wasn’t that important (laughs)

T: We hate her, but we appreciate some things that she said.

B: Exactly, there are some very transphobic feminist theologians who have had some good commentary that we will just absolutely pick out of the pile and make our own.

T: And also acknowledge their transmisogyny.

B: Oh, yeah.

T: Because it does inform their work.

B: Oh, 100%, but I do think “If God is male, then male is God” is a good argument against using exclusively male pronouns for God when translating.

T: Just as long as you don’t include transwomen in your definition of male, which she does (laughs).

B: (laughs) That’s important.

M: I think one of the bolder statements that Mary Daly made—again, pouring salt onto her (laughs)—was this idea that a masculine God is just idolatry of men.

T: I like that

M: Which I think is such an interesting way to think about systems of oppression, like Mary Daly would hate me for saying this, but transphobia as idolatry of cis people, patriarchy as idolatry of men, white supremacy as idolatry of white people.

B: Yes.

T: I think that’s quite good.

B: I think this is also Mary Daly, when you’re looking at this in a Christian context, and you interpret God as male, and then you interpret Jesus as male, and you interpret all of the apostles(?) as male.

T: Is it apostles?

B: How do you say it?

M: I’ve heard it both ways.

B: Well that’s why I said it with a question mark because I felt like I was saying it wrong (laughs). Then, you have created for yourself a precedent of patrilineality and patriarchy in the very basis, in the very foundation of the religion

T: So true bestie.

M: (laughs) That’s so true bestie.

B: (laughs). So to circle back to Genesis 1:27 if that’s alright with everybody, I would like to bring into conversation the sequence of this passage.

M: Ohhhh

B: So, “God creates mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them”. Something that I think is really fascinating and a really interesting commentary on God’s own gender and the creation of gender in humans is the fact that, according to the sequence of this passage, it seems as though God creates humans in God’s image, and then gender enters the equation. So, God is not initially creating humans with gender, gender is sort of a secondary little accessory that gets thrown on there, which goes in line with the fact that God was not created with gender until later.

T: Yeah, and I think it could also be interpreted as elaboration on the image of God, you know what I mean. In their image, as I would say, God created them, male and female, like that’s the image, is that God is both of those. And then, therefore, Adam is also both of those, which is how I kind of thought about it when I first read it.

B: I do think, either way, gender is not the first thing on God’s mind when creating humans.

T: Totally agree.

M: I agree.

B: To be fair, if you’re making a human, are you thinking first “what gender is this human going to be” or are you thinking, like “Oh my God, I’m making a human, I’ve got to think about a lot of other things before I get down to those details”

T: “I’ve got to give them organs and stuff”, maybe.

M: Maybe, if they want them

B: “I’ve got to give them one too many ribs”

M: (laughs) so I can take one. I’m also just thinking, from the book Torah Queeries—which goes through the Torah through an LGBT lens--a great book--of the male and female as a commentary, that would also tie into the beginning passage. All of Genesis is what my fancy dad—he just has a master’s in divinity—he calls it “elevated prose”. So, it’s not quite poetry, but knocking on poetry’s door, and there is a lot of opposite energy like God created darkness and light, and land and water, and so God created the gender last and also maybe the author the duality of gender to be like “look at the whole spectrum of things God is creating” and to quote from Torah Queeries: When the Bible says there is evening and there is morning—those two opposites—it means that there was evening, there was dawn, there was morning, there was noon, there was dusk, there was all of those pieces. By saying God created masculine and feminine, assuming those are two opposites on a spectrum, God created so much, he even hit the very ends of the gender spectrum and everything in-between, which I think is a cool idea.

T: Yeah.

B: Yeah, that was a concept we covered in the Judaism and Gender class I took, and it was really interesting—and they talk about this in Torah Queeries­—the idea that you are pointing to these two extremes to indicate a spectrum, but also indicating the darkness and light doesn’t mean there is no dimness—the middle of the night and high noon doesn’t mean there is no morning and sunset and whatever. But, my professor—I remember—talking about, that’s pretty well supported by—and obviously it’s a very interpretive way of looking at it—but my professor who was actually very good at reading Ancient Hebrew was like, “Yeah, when you read this in the original text, it does make sense, it’s not so out there”

M: Yeah, we’re reading in context, we’re not just flipping the Bible for our evil, evil gay, and trans agenda

T: Exactly

B: (laughs) Well that’s maybe a little bit what we’re doing

T: I mean I’ll do it, but that’s not what we’re doing right now.

M: Can I dabble in some queer theology that— hope someone calls me a heretic for saying this.

B: Oh please, bitch.

M: (laughs) Jesus was Intersex, it’s an interesting theory, the idea that when Jesus was in the womb there was no cis man involved, or there was no person with XY chromosomes involved, so Jesus likely could have only had XX chromosomes, and “male” genitals.

T: Jesus has XX Chromosomes…

B: Jesus is trans? Jesus is intersex?

M: And it also makes sense in the context of in—can I call Christians Bible Babes? I’m gonna do it.

T: Yes.

M: For all the Bible Babes out there (laughs), Jesus, the whole point was that he came to be an upside-down kingdom. He crossed boundaries between divine and human, he crossed boundaries between life and death, he made the least of these the most of these, that was his whole thing. Do you really think Jesus could not transgress gender boundaries if it’s one of the last things God created when God created humans, and Jesus transcended such bigger things than gender, do you really think Jesus was only stuck being a man? Are we going to limit God to that?

T: So true, and also he literally transcended Divine and Human

B: Yeah

T: Like, I can transcend male and female, bitch, clearly Jesus was doing it. 

M: Yeah.

B: It’s so commonplace to transcend gender boundaries, and Theo can you turn water into wine?

T: Not so far.

B: Exactly!

T: But we’ll see!

B: (laughs) keep working on it.

M: Jesus has much bigger fish to fry—like God had much bigger fish to create (laughs) and Jesus had so much bigger fish to fry than gender.

T: Jesus had so many of God’s big Fish to fry (laugh)

B: Something else that I thought was a really interesting re-interpretation of—what are we talking about—Genesis (laughs). So, there’s the idea that God created Adam and from Adam’s rib, God created Eve. If you’re not familiar with Genies, there’s Adam, Adam’s the first human, then I think Adam’s lonely so God’s like “Oh, man I gotta make you a buddy, give me one of your ribs because I am not starting from scratch again” (laughs) this is a Bridget interpretation of the Genesis story, the way I’m telling it right now (laughs).

T: I think it tracks.

B: Yeah, and out of Adam’s rib God creates Eve, and a lot of people have seen that as “women”—in quotes—everything I say “women” or “men” it’s always going to be in quotes

T: With like four asterisks at the end.

B: So, women, people will look at this and say women are secondary to men. Women were created second, you had to start from a man to make a woman. Whereas an interesting reinterpretation of this is that women were kind of an improvement on men. 

M: (laughs) Man 2.0.

B: Yeah, like “man” was Adam a man, really hard to say, I’m actually gonna go with no. But, when God created Eve, God took what had already been made and made it even better.

T: I think that’s correct, also considering women.

B: I was also going to say, God also made women to be the ideal companion, which was very lesbian of God to do.

T: True, and also, they are.

B: And something else that I think is really interesting—I’m drawing on some eco-feminist theology for this one. So, God created animals first, and then created humans, right? We’re all on board with that chronology?

T: Yes

B: Okay, so then God creates Adam and then God creates Eve, there’s this really interesting idea that God is kind of saving the best for last in these situations

All: (laugh).

B: There’s no doubt that biblically we kind of have this human superiority—I think it’s important to read through source text of scripture that says “Oh, God created animals and then God created human to rule over animals—meaning God created human to look out for and exist in a mutually beneficial way with animals and also not to destroy them”. Therefore, I think the proper Jewish things to do to respect their environment.

T: Yeah, I’d say so.

B: Yeah, but you also have this idea that God is going in this really interesting order of creating things where they are becoming more and more close to God—if that makes sense—because humans are towards the end and humans are B'tzelem Elohim—created in the Image of God. So, if you just want to stick with that chronology and really go out on a limb here, you could argue that women are even more created in the image of God

All: (laugh)

T: I think you could argue that.

M: Is this a misandry podcast?

T: Yeah this is a misandry podcast.

B: You might want to cut that out (laughs).

T: No I won’t. I also think something interesting when you’re looking at it from a scientific perspective, which I do with all things because I love science.

M: Well, I hate science so.

B: I have a bachelor’s in science, so I feel like I have the right to say “Fuck science”.

T: Well, I like science. When you think of God making Eve out of Adam’s rib, you’re using the same genetic material, so clearly there are not many differences between them, one of them being sex—biological sex, which is ambiguous obviously.

M: Jesus was an intersex person. It’s not clear cut

T: It’s not binary and it’s also just ambiguous in terms of just Adam and Eve, but when you think about genetically, they would be the same. Who knows what gender is…

B: Woah Woah Woah Woah, you’re interpreting Eve as a clone of Adam? 

T: I mean a little bit. Somehow, clearly, she’s not a clone of Adam, and also God is doing this, so the limitations are not there of genetic science that humans can do.,

B: Listen, Geneticists, if Adam had an XY chromosome and Eve had an XX chromosome, then what you’re telling me is God also had an XX chromosome (laughs). Okay, I don’t think of God as a biological genetic being

T: Me neither, that doesn’t make sense.

B: But if we are going to interpret God as a biological genetic being, then God would probably be some kind of—I think it’s called chimera?—A single organism composed of cells with more than one distinct genotype.

T: Ohhhh, yeah! I mean, I think you’d be right about that. You can’t really talk about God within the bounds of biology because it just doesn’t make sense.

B: I know! Now I’m going to pivot and make an argument that—if we’re thinking about Eve being created out of Adam, that Adam could have initially been a chimera, and Eve could have been cloned from the XX genotype of Adam.

T: Or the XY. Who knows? But, yeah, I get what you mean.

B: My armchair genetics degree that I got from watching Orphan Black has now reached the end of what I remember.

T: My medical special interest that I’ve done no formal training in, that’s my sources, thank you.

B: That was a really interesting scientific exploration of what these genes could look like (laugh). That was not something that I thought before I was saying it aloud, so please take whatever.

T: I enjoy it, I do.

M: Another perspective—very cis-normative—but another perspective of—if you look at the actual biological make-up of XX chromosomes and XY chromosomes, the Y chromosome is kind of like a messed-up version of an X chromosome.

T: It is true, it’s a lot shorter, and it has less stuff.

M: Yeah, but if people are concerned about us talking about how women are better than men, please read some history, it’s our turn. And if that bothers you, but men’s superiority doesn’t bother you, what’s going on?

T: Yeah, true?

B: If people are concerned about us saying that women are better than men in a half joking-half serious manner, you probably shouldn’t have listened.

T: You’re not going to like this lesbian podcast.

B: You probably shouldn’t be listening to this lesbian kind of misandrist podcast (laughs).

T: You’re not gonna like it!

B: I’m also going to say, I really am not a misandrist.

T: I am.

B: Because I think gender is too foolish to base anything serious on.

T: Oh no, I agree.

M: That’s true, arguably gender was one of the last things God created

B: But gender was the one that was probably the most thrown together. I’m going to make the argument that at that point, God was tired, and God was just making stuff up.

T: God was like “I’m tired, I guess I gotta do this thing, ehh, made gender”.

B: Well, I also think, at the end of the day, God made biological sex, and then humans made up gender.

T: That’s also true

B: I’m not going to sit here and really blame God for gender.

T: I agree, actually, I think you’re right about that. I think we have established at this point that humans did makeup gender and gender is super made up and not real. Sex is real in a certain way.

M: Sex is real, but my arm is also real.

T: Like, it’s there physically yes. We can do science about it.

B: Listen, sex is happening (laughs).

M: Inside and outside of marriage (laughs)

T: Sex is…I can’t...I was about to make a “sex is what’s happening with me and your mom” joke, but I realize I can’t make a fucking your mom joke in two in a row podcasts.

B: I actually think you should make one per episode. It’s not a real podcast Episode if Theo hasn’t made at least one 

T: Fucking your mom, someone’s mom joke. My mom is gonna hate this podcast (laughs).

B: I’m laughing every time

T: I think it’s so funny

M: We’re nearing the end of our hour

T: Oh yeah, we need to wrap up.

B: Do we have any closing thoughts on God, gender, the creation of gender in Genesis. Do we feel like this was so chaotic, or do you feel like people are going to be able to follow what we are talking about? (laughs).

T: I think we said some really interesting things. Whether or not it was in a way that you can follow, it doesn’t matter, that’s not what this podcast is about.

B: Does anyone have any favorite things that we addressed today or anything else they want to add or any least favorite things?

M: Oh, as Theo said, if humans can transgress gender boundaries, God certainly can. That was a heads up. Also, God created sex, and humans created gender, we don’t really know why, but they did. They also made the tower of Babel.

T: Humans love to make stupid rules.

B: Humans love to do things that are just absolute chaos.

T: And then God’s like what the shit are you doing right now.

M: “I have to send a flood?!”

T: Then sometimes, they makes them speak a bunch of different languages to stop them.

B: Sometimes God is like, I’m not talking to you guys anymore (laughs).

T: Someday, maybe, God will do something that will make gender go away, and I’m just waiting for that day (laughs). 

Bridget: (laughs) but until now, is it fun to play with

M: Isn’t it fun to think about

T: It’s fun to have it as putty in my hands.

M: The concept of gender. 

B: I love thinking about God being the nourishing God of breasts.

T: Me too.

B: It really just works for me (laughs).

T: We are all a fan of Titties I think, on this podcast.

B: I’m very pro breast.

T: Me too. I don’t have any, I took mine off, but I’m pro other people’s (laugh).

B: I was about to say, I’m pro breast as long as the person who has them wants them.

M: Pro-consensual breasts (laughs).

B: (laughs) Maggie’s absolutely right.

T: Our new tagline.

B: I’ve always kind of loved the idea of “El Shaddai”

T: I’m a big fan.

B: Yeah. I also love saying B'tzelem Elohim because it reminds me of this really camp song that we would sing at every Reform Jewish camp or child event. It goes (sings) “When I reach out to you, and you to me, we become B'tzelem Elohim” (laughs). Which is just “When I reach out to you and you to me, we become made in the image of God (laughs).

T: Fucking, I’ll take it I guess.

B: (sings) “When we share our hopes and our dreams, each one of us Made in the Image of God” is the English translation. It’s nonsense and I love it.

M: I think that’s a good closing note, Bridget.

B: Yeah, I also think it’s important to mention that “Made in the Image of God” is often interpreted in a non-physical sense. We’re made in the Image of God in our ability to connect with and experience the Divine and in our ability to, I don’t know, have all the thinking in our brains and whatnot.

T: Yeah.

B: Thank you, I am a professional theologian (laughs). 

T: Okay do you wanna end this podcast?

B: Yeah, thank you for joining us on My Ex and My Future Wife, I’m Bridget

T: I’m Theo

M: I’m Maggie

B: We’ll see you next week and, in the meantime, be gay and question God.

Theo (singing): My Ex and My Future Wife.