 |
| Joan of Arc at the Coronation of Charles VII (1854) by Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres |
Today it behooves us to place the assignment of specific roles to women
in its proper social context and also to understand traditional roles in the
light of our present-day and scientific understanding of biological sex
assignment.
Briefly, women as a social group are diverse individuals. As
individuals, their social roles extend beyond traditional roles, e.g. wife and
mother. Mother Teresa of Calcutta was extraordinarily successful in bringing
compassion and caring to religious ministry, but we could also cite, for
instance, the very successful role Golda Meir played in building up the Israeli
state. As Prime Minister of Israel, she assumed a traditional male role, major
military responsibility, for instance, and was notably successful at it.
A second point is that the traditional roles of women are, relatively
speaking, less powerful than the roles of men in traditional society. An
obvious example is that if women are occupied as housewives and mothers, they
do not earn money directly. This absence of formal gainful occupation is
directly related to economic disenfranchisement. It is most apparent, for
example, when women are abandoned by husbands who earn most or all of the
household income. You cannot divorce the discussion of women’s roles from their
social, in particular, their political and economic context. If you confine
women to their traditional roles in society, you divest them unjustly of
political and economic power.
Our scientific understanding of biological sex assignment today tells
us that genetics do play a role, a limited sort of determinism, in influencing
the psychological constitution of the biological sexes. Bluntly speaking, some
males have difficulties identifying with traditional male roles, and the same
with females, who have difficulties identifying with traditional female roles.
They are homosexuals or intersex or something along those lines. Sometimes
these psychological differences are reflected in genital and related biological
differences. If social roles are not entirely biologically determined, then why
should we enforce social determinism contradicted by limited biological
determinism? When individuals who report discrepancies between their
psychological constitution and their biological sex assignment are assigned
traditional social roles, they can claim, rightly so, social oppression. The
issues are complex and not so simply or readily addressed.
Public domain image
ReplyDeleteImage link:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ingres_coronation_charles_vii.jpg
Gonzalinho
“The message should remain the same that this is a complex behavior that genetics definitely plays a part in,” said study co-author Fah Sathirapongsasuti, a computational biologist at genetic testing company 23andMe in Mountain View, Calif., during a press conference. The handful of genetic studies conducted in the past few decades have looked at only a few hundred individuals at most—and almost exclusively men. Other studies have linked sexual orientation with environmental factors such as hormone exposure before birth and having older brothers.
ReplyDelete...The researchers found five single points in the genome that seemed to be common among people who had had at least one same-sex experience. Two of these genetic markers sit close to genes linked to sex hormones and to smell—both factors that may play a role in sexual attraction. But taken together, these five markers explained less than 1 percent of the differences in sexual activity among people in the study. When the researchers looked at the overall genetic similarity of individuals who had had a same-sex experience, genetics seemed to account for between 8 and 25 percent of the behavior. The rest was presumably a result of environmental or other biological influences. The findings were published Thursday in Science.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-finds-no-single-genetic-cause-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/
—Sara Reardon, “Massive Study Finds No Single Genetic Cause of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior,” Scientific American, August 29, 2019
Excellent science—the popular exposition is measured, suitably nuanced, well-qualified, and supported by scientific data and analysis.
Gonzalinho
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation
—“Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” American Psychological Association, 2008
Also excellent science from an authoritative source—the summary is cogent besides also being measured, suitably nuanced and qualified, and supported by scientific data and analysis, although it is written for a broad audience and consequently not with the same degree of scientific detail as the Scientific American article.
Gonzalinho
THE CONTINUING QUANDARY OF GENDER
ReplyDeleteThe Vatican on Monday issued a new document approved by Pope Francis stating that the church believes that gender fluidity and transition surgery, as well as surrogacy, amount to affronts to human dignity.
The sex a person is assigned at birth, the document argued, was an “irrevocable gift” from God and “any sex-change intervention, as a rule, risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received from the moment of conception.” People who desire “a personal self-determination, as gender theory prescribes,” risk succumbing “to the age-old temptation to make oneself God.”
Regarding surrogacy, the document unequivocally stated the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition, whether the woman carrying a baby “is coerced into it or chooses to subject herself to it freely.” Surrogacy makes the child “a mere means subservient to the arbitrary gain or desire of others,” the Vatican said in the document, which also opposed in vitro fertilization.
The document was intended as a broad statement of the church’s view on human dignity, including the exploitation of the poor, migrants, women and vulnerable people. The Vatican acknowledged that it was touching on difficult issues, but said that in a time of great tumult, it was essential, and it hoped beneficial, for the church to restate its teachings on the centrality of human dignity.
…The document, five years in the making, immediately generated deep consternation among advocates for L.G.B.T.Q. rights in the church, who fear it will be used against transgender people. That was so, they said, even as the document warned of “unjust discrimination” in countries where transgender people are imprisoned or face aggression, violence and sometimes death.
“The Vatican is again supporting and propagating ideas that lead to real physical harm to transgender, nonbinary and other L.G.B.T.Q.+ people,” said Francis DeBernardo, the executive director of New Ways Ministry, a Maryland-based group that advocates for gay Catholics, adding that the Vatican’s defense of human dignity excluded “the segment of the human population who are transgender, nonbinary or gender nonconforming.”
He said it presented an outdated theology based on physical appearance alone and was blind to “the growing reality that a person’s gender includes the psychological, social and spiritual aspects naturally present in their lives.”
The document, he said, showed a “stunning lack of awareness of the actual lives of transgender and nonbinary people.” Its authors ignored the transgender people who shared their experiences with the church, Mr. DeBernardo said, “cavalierly,” and incorrectly, dismissing them as a purely Western phenomenon.
…The document said “gender theory plays a central role” in that vision and that its “scientific coherence is the subject of considerable debate among experts.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/08/world/europe/vatican-sex-change-surrogacy-dignity.html
—Jason Horowitz and Elisabetta Povoledo, “Vatican Document Casts Gender Change and Fluidity as Threat to Human Dignity,” The New York Times (April 8, 2024)
Surrogacy has been a problem for some time, since the first case in 1988. Already then it was opposed in the U.S. press as unethical.
Gender change is a more complex issue because it brings into the subject scientific knowledge about human biology, psychology, and related questions about human society. It might be a simple ethical issue from a religious standpoint, but is it really only about religion? I don’t think so.
I personally find gender change horrific to contemplate, but my personal views don’t address the underlying psychological and social problems. And the pope making a pronouncement doesn’t fully address the issue.
Gender ideology is not only a philosophical or religious issue, it’s a social and psychological problem, and as such, religion by itself isn’t going to adequately address it.
Gonzalinho
MINOTAUR’S MAZE
ReplyDeleteYour Holiness and Your Eminence, the peace of Christ be with you. We write today as a collective of students of Catholic divinity and theological schools and trained ministers. We love this church, we love our Catholic faith, and we ground our ministry in our baptismal call to holiness. We are also trans, nonbinary, and queer and those who love and accompany them. Personally, professionally and ministerially, we are concerned with Dignitas Infinita’s statements on gender theory and sex change. We, along with other people of goodwill, write to you today.
An outdoor photo displays a yellow trash bin that is covered with graffiti that includes the words “peace,” “love,” “unity” and “respect.”
We read with gratitude the document’s insistence on inalienable human dignity for migrants, the poor, and others whose dignity is consistently violated. We are saddened, therefore, that the document fails to recognize the dignity of trans and gender-nonconforming people. In its condemnation of gender “ideology” and “sex change,” the document marginalizes the infinite dignity in people of all genders and their authentic self-expression and inadvertently perpetuates the harm it aims to overcome.
…Theologically: The declaration claims that the goal of “gender theory” is to “deny sexual difference.” In recognizing trans and gender-nonconforming individuals, we see no risk of erasing sexual difference. Instead, doing so would affirm the vast sexual difference and dignity of individuals, and the diversity of God’s creation. We have seen clearly, in our lives and in our ministries, that trans and gender-nonconforming individuals are not seeking to “make [themselves] God,” as Paragraph 57 of the declaration alleges. Rather, continually discerning and living in alignment with one’s gender identity can be an affirmation of the unique person whom God created and calls each of us to be.
…Ethically: Paragraph 55 of the document states that “it should be denounced as contrary to human dignity the fact that, in some places, not a few people are imprisoned, tortured, and even deprived of the good of life solely because of their sexual orientation.” We affirm this statement as we ask: Is the flourishing of trans and gender-nonconforming individuals limited to legal protection from imprisonment, torture and death? Trans and gender-nonconforming Catholics dream that the Catholic Church might someday affirm their dignity not only to survive as who they are, but to live and flourish as who they are.
…We ask that Catholic ethicists who specialize in gender and sexual ethics, particularly LGBTQ+ ethics, be offered the opportunity to participate in the discernment and creation of future documents on gender and sexual diversity using the fullness of their skills. Their training will be invaluable as we, as a church, seek to affirm the dignity of trans, nonconforming and intersex people in accordance with the tradition’s insistence on human dignity.
We also call for a commission of queer, trans and intersex theologians, ministers, and lay believers to advise the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. We implore you to hear the cries of transgender, nonbinary and intersex people. As a church, we cannot love who we do not truly know.
https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/guest-voices/catholic-students-theologians-ministers-write-open-letter-pope-francis
—Unsplash / Alice Donovan Rouse, “Catholic students, theologians, ministers write an open letter to Pope Francis,” National Catholic Reporter (April 25, 2024)
Not surprising to see National Catholic Reporter publish an article like this.
I’m sympathetic but on controversial issues where I don’t have a personal stake, I would prefer to watch on the sidelines.
Without denying or taking issue with anything said in Dignitas Infinita, I do agree with two points the article makes:
- No evidence of direct dialogue with the persons who are the subject of the CDF declaration
- No evidence of adequate consultation of scientific disciplines about the matters under discussion
Gonzalinho