The Absurdity and Danger of Gender Theory

Recent news has once again brought to the forefront the issue of “transgender” people.

This phenomenon is based on something called “gender theory”. The whole idea of “gender theory” is, in my opinion, so patently absurd that it is actually hard for me to accept that anyone could possibly believe it. The theory is that “gender” is not determined by one’s biological sex, but is a separate matter that is defined according to the subjective desires of an individual. To them, one’s biological sex is a matter that is “assigned” at birth, and has no intrinsic connection with one’s sexual identity.

This is an echo of an ancient philosophical, scientific and anthropological error of dualism, which separates the body from one’s mind or soul. It rests on the proposition that one’s real essence is separate from, and merely resides in a physical shell, which can thus be used or manipulated however one wants.  This denies the integrity of mind and body, and soul and body, and makes a person’s identity something that can be determined independent of biological reality. This error — which was also an ancient Christian heresy of Gnosticism — continues to pop up in different forms, and the latest is “gender theory”.

It is a dehumanizing point of view, because it denies the logical and scientifically clear understanding that biological sexual difference is essential to human nature. Sexual difference has enormous significance for our biochemistry, physical structure (not just our reproductive system, our brains too), behavior, and psychology.  This is also at the heart of Christian anthropology, which recognizes the inherent complementarity of the sexes, and their dignity as creatures made in the image of God.

This is a critical matter in our modern world, and not just because of arguments about who can use which bathroom. It goes directly to the very heart of human nature, and errors about that key question can have disastrous effects on morals and on society.  The separation of mind from body inevitably leads to the misuse of the body, and even of nature in general.

Several years ago, Pope Benedict addressed this point definitively in his annual address to the Curia — what you might call his “State of the Church and the World Address”. His comments are worth quoting at length (my emphasis is added in bold):

[T]he question of the family is not just about a particular social construct, but about man himself – about what he is and what it takes to be authentically human

The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, made up of father, mother, and child, goes much deeper. While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question. He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society.

The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves.

Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed.

But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.

The Holy Father got right to the center of the question — the debate is, at its heart, about the nature of the human person. It is in the end a question about “who created me”. The modernist approach is to create myself in my own image and likeness, making myself into my own little god, answerable to no objective or higher truth.

We’re already at least fifty years into a society-wide experiment that denies the true purpose of sexuality, and we are now moving into an unknown territory with the denial of the nature of the human person.  We’ve seen the destructive results of this experiment all around us, and can only wonder about where “gender theory” will lead us and our descendants.

Tags:

3 Responses to “The Absurdity and Danger of Gender Theory”

  1. Peter Rox says:

    I do not pretend to have an understanding of transgender. However, I am willing to admit that there is a vast amount of knowledge that we humans do not yet possess about the great mystery of sex, gender, and related subjects. I am open to seeking truth. This includes with the assistance of science, medicine, psychology, etc. I do not think that we are yet even close to understanding transgender. I do not think that we should denounce proponents of the concept, nor do I think that we should be uncharitable to individuals with this condition. I certainly do not believe that science, medicine, psychology may be challenged purely with theological argument. We saw what happened to the Church over time ( it was wrong) when going after Galileo when attacking science with theology. I belied that the sum of human understanding knowledge increase over time, incrementally. This causes some earlier beliefs to fall.

  2. Ed Mechmann says:

    This time the Church is on the side of science, and the gender theory people are spouting unscientific nonsense. There are few things that are better established by science than the myriad physical and psychological characteristics that are directly determined and related to the biological difference between men and women. Even Wikipedia knows that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology. Gender studies is based solely on a post-modern literary and psychiatric theories that have no basis whatsoever in actual science.

  3. Zach says:

    Ed – This is phenomenally concise and clear! I especially appreciate the tie to Gnosticism – history really is quite recursive.