This separation is at the root of the distinctions proposed between various “sexual orientations” 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).'"
I actually don't have a problem with this as a position I can argue about. So, as regards sexual orientation, this seems to be based on male and female natural and male with female for procreation cos that is what sex is FOR. Whereas, from a scientific point of view, sexual and capacity for sexual pleasure (think bonobos here), has primary purpose, if you like, of sexual reproduction, plus secondary purposes (like being used by bonobos to help alleviate group tension). Other forms of sexual orientation though, whatever your personal definition of your own sexuality, has to involve others and hence from a practical point of view, involves biology in terms of who does what and to whom and with what. Which is possible female to female or male to male, as bonobos know as well, so as 'natural' as anything else. Whether you think this is a good thing or not is up for debate, and what you think your particular god might do if you do it is also up for debate, if you insist.
But gender in this analysis, and this I would agree with, is subjective, and then the problem comes if you try to insist upon an alignment of your subjective opinion about yourself or your own identity, with what others say/think about you. You can't (and shouldn't, I think) try to control the thoughts of others about you. So, as regards lesbianism, I would not require anyone to pretend that a lesbian marriage is just like a heterosexual marriage, because in terms of things like procreation it isn't, and would be bloody stupid to pretend it is, lesbian couples require difference services to have kids than straight couples. But we are already used to many religions viewing marriages as less valid than others just look at divorce etc, or civil marriage as compared to a religious ceremony. I don't want anyone to ignore biology here. I may disagree with certain religious or ethical viewpoints, but as long as I am allowed to argue about them and not compelled to believe in them, then that is fine.
But with TRAs, as we all know, biology is out the window, subjective rather than the objective, and dissent not allowed. That is why I can partially agree with this statement by the (modern) Vatican, not because I necessarily agree with the conclusions or the basis of their beliefs, but because there is a large degree of commonality as to what matters and what is unacceptable. You can only argue with someone after all if there is a common ground of some sort, the problem being that is not allowed with TRAs, because the initial disagreement is wrongthink, and the grounds for how we determine what is true/a good argument, well, we aren't even allowed to debate!
In a nutshell, the catholic church at least has dealt with the right of other religious belief systems to exist even if they think they are (mostly) wrong -- TRAs haven't! Which is why in religious terms the catholics are more progressive than TRAs. Funny ole world...........