So, the pope's come out the closet at last. In 2005 he took on the top job in Rome with a reputation for Christian fundamentalism and support for traditional (as in medieval) religious doctrine. Until now, he's pretty much kept his nasty streak in check. But today we learn that in his end of year spraff to the Curia (heid bummers at the Vatican) Pope Benedict XVI said that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction. He then went on to totally reject the very reasonable concept of gender theory.
Cheesy peeps - this guy (and he's always a guy) is supposed to give spiritual guidance to an estimated 6th of the world's population. I've no doubt that many sensible Catholics will shrug, cringe or maybe even consider their continued belief in such nebulous concepts as Jesus and Mary (already heard Cristina Odone on the radio criticising his outburst). But there are bound to be bigots who feel emboldened by this kinda pish. We can now sleep a little less easy in the knowledge that life for gays and transsexuals just got a wee bit harder than it needs to be.
Peace and goodwill to all (wo)men my bumhole!
Gender Theory works as a model for examining a persons psychological gender, but one cannot discount the physiological differences between between males and females, including genetics and anatomy.
ReplyDeleteThe question really surrounds the issue of whether there is a strict correlation between ones physiological and psychological genders.
While there may usually be a correlation, there is not always a correlation, so the answer must be no.
So the gender of the psyche then, is distinct from that of the physiology, being determined by social and cultural factors.
Where does this leave the issue of sexuality?
Again, sexuality is a cultural construct. Hetrosexual, homosexual and transexual are arbitrary terms used only to categorise. If one has separated the psychological and physiological gender, to which does one apply the sexuality?
Personally I would recommend a laissez-faire attititude to the whole subject. No need for labels, laws, rules and regulations. Certainly no need for doctrines passed down from the Vatican which the hard of thinking will treat as, er, gospel.
Al, it's not often i go for laissez-faire, but i think i concur with you on this one. Each to their own eh?
ReplyDelete