Original document
wetransfer.com/downloads/12e9deeb99912fb3f5f6cd1f799e00cc20190610145054/fc1f09
"The 20th century brought
new anthropological theories and with them the beginnings of gender
theory. These were based on a reading of sexual differentiation that was
strictly sociological, relying on a strong emphasis on the freedom of the
individual. In fact, around the middle of the last century, a whole series
of studies were published which accentuated time and again the role of
external conditioning, including its influence on determining personality.
When such studies were applied to human sexuality, they often did so
with a view to demonstrating that sexuality identity was more a social
construct than a given natural or biological fact.
- These schools of thought were united in denying the existence of
any original given element in the individual, which would precede and
at the same time constitute our personal identity, forming the necessary
basis of everything we do.
"
"Furthermore it was suggested that one could uphold the theory of a radical separation
between gender and sex, with the former having priority over the latter.
Such a goal was seen as an important stage in the evolution of humanity, in
which “a society without sexual differences” could be envisaged."
'In this cultural context, it is clear that sex and gender are no longer syn-
onyms or interchangeable concepts, since they are used to describe two
different realities. Sex is seen as defining which of the two biological
categories (deriving from the original feminine-masculine dyad) one be-
longed to. Gender, on the other hand, would be the way in which the
differences between the sexes are lived in each culture. The problem here
does not lie in the distinction between the two terms, which can be inter-
preted correctly, but in the separation of sex from gender. This separation is
at the root of the distinctions proposed between various “sexual orienta-
tions” which are no longer defined by the sexual difference between male
and female, and can then assume other forms, determined solely by the
individual, who is seen as radically autonomous. Further, the concept of
gender is seen as dependent upon the subjective mindset of each person,
who can choose a gender not corresponding to his or her biological sex,
and therefore with the way others see that person (transgenderism).'
'Gender theory (especially in its most radical forms)
speaks of a gradual process of denaturalisation, that is a move away from
nature and towards an absolute option for the decision of the feelings of
the human subject. In this understanding of things, the view of both sex-
uality identity and the family become subject to the same ‘liquidity’ and
‘fluidity’ that characterize other aspects of post-modern culture, often
founded on nothing more than a confused concept of freedom in the
realm of feelings and wants, or momentary desires provoked by emo-
tional impulses and the will of the individual, as opposed to anything
based on the truths of existence.
20. The underlying presuppositions of these theories can be traced back
to a dualistic anthropology, separating body (reduced to the status of in-
ert matter) from human will, which itself becomes an absolute that can
manipulate the body as it pleases. This combination of physicalism and
voluntarism gives rise to relativism, in which everything that exists is of
equal value and at the same time undifferentiated, without any real order
or purpose. In all such theories, from the most moderate to the most rad-
ical, there is agreement that one’s gender ends up being viewed as more
important than being of male or female sex. The effect of this move is
chiefly to create a cultural and ideological revolution driven by relativism,
and secondarily a juridical revolution, since such beliefs claim specific
rights for the individual and across society.'
'This ideology inspires educational programmes and legislative trends
that promote ideas of personal identity and affective intimacy that make
a radical break with the actual biological difference between male and female.
Human identity is consigned to the individual’s choice, which can also
change in time'
'In the light of this reality, we can understand
why the data of biological and medical science shows that ‘sexual dimor-
phism’ (that is, the sexual difference between men and women) can be
demonstrated scientifically by such fields as genetics, endocrinology and
neurology. From the point of view of genetics, male cells (which contain
XY chromosomes) differ, from the very moment of conception, from
female cells (with their XX chromosomes). That said, in cases where a
person’s sex is not clearly defined, it is medical professionals who can
make a therapeutic intervention. In such situations, parents cannot make
an arbitrary choice on the issue, let alone society. Instead, medical science
should act with purely therapeutic ends, and intervene in the least in-
vasive fashion, on the basis of objective parameters and with a view to
establishing the person’s constitutive identity.
25. The process of identifying sexual identity is made more difficult by the
fictitious constract known as “gender neuter” or “third gender”, which
has the effect of obscuring the fact that a person’s sex is a structural
determinant of male or female identity. '
'Efforts to go beyond the constitutive male-female sexual difference, such as the ideas of “intersex”
or “transgender”, lead to a masculinity or feminity that is ambiguous,
even though (in a self-contradictory way), these concepts themselves ac-
tually presuppose the very sexual difference that they propose to negate
or supersede. This oscillation between male and female becomes, at the
end of the day, only a ‘provocative’ display against so-called ‘traditional
frameworks’, and one which, in fact, ignores the suffering of those who
have to live situations of sexual indeterminacy. '