“Gender” is one of the more confusing and confused terms in modern anthropology. “So-called gender theory” has been denounced by Pope Francis; and its philosophical problems were rather famously dealt with by Pope Benedict XVI during a 2012 address to the Roman Curia. As a linguistics-derived term to describe integration of sexual attributes and attitudes, “gender” can be helpful. But when sought or imposed contrary to the natural sexual categories of male and female, “gender” becomes false and problematic.
“Transgenderism” also is a confusing term. In yesterday’s The Absurdity of Non-Transgenderism Christopher Damian defines it as “a disconnect between one’s self-perceived gender and the most obvious gendered attributes of one’s exterior anatomy.” In any case, both “gender” and “transgender” are parts of the modern lexicon that must be dealt with by clear thinking and recourse to solid principles.
In speaking of “ontological gender,” Damian’s essay adds something to the gender framework that attempts to reconcile an overwhelmingly popular (and popularized) concept with principles of the Aristotelian tradition. It asks whether reproductive health is the sole criterion by which the telos of all one’s sexual characteristics can be identified.
Damian’s article deserves thoughtful reflection and responses. It contributes to an important political and cultural debate—one that benefits not only from rehearsing moral arguments for and against “transgenderism” and its corollaries, but also from enriching the philosophical lexicon, which can sometimes provide breakthroughs in making morality intelligible. I hope that Ethika Politika can continue to be a forum for this conversation, and that at least in some small way the moral truths of the orthodox Christian tradition will be made more understandable and accessible by it.
