Gender theory and religious beliefs

[Parisite]

I'm wonder how much to make of the fact that the former head of Stonewall is a practising Catholic.

Somebody who thinks you can have a 'true' inner gender identity that is at odds with your body... belonging to a religion that talks about an invisible soul as the seat of true identity, in tension with the body.

Are people from faiths that believe in a soul (eg Catholics, New Agers) more likely to believe gender theory, because they're used to thinking the 'authentic' self isn't their body?

Thoughts sparked by this article, which questions the idea that people have an inner 'True Self' at odds with everyday, embodied life:

https://www.flaneurnotes.com/post/on-not-having-a-true-self

What Arabella said! Except, Arabella, did you really mean curious or Catholic?

A friend from the US shared this with me regarding Catholicism and Gender Identity

“DOCTRINAL NOTE ON THE MORAL LIMITS TO TECHNOLOGICAL MANIPULATION OF THE HUMAN BODY
Committee on Doctrine
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

1. Modern technology offers an ever-increasing range of means—chemical, surgical, genetic—for intervening in the functioning of the human body, as well as for modifying its appearance. These technological developments have provided the ability to cure many human maladies and promise to cure many more. This has been a great boon to humanity. Modern technology, however, produces possibilities not only for helpful interventions, but also for interventions that are injurious to the true flourishing of the human person. Careful moral discernment is needed to determine which possibilities should be realized and which should not, in order to promote the good of the human person. To do this discernment, it is necessary to employ criteria that respect the created order inscribed in our human nature.”

a further extract…

“A crucial aspect of the order of nature created by God is the body-soul unity of each human person. Throughout her history, the Church has opposed dualistic conceptions of the human person that do not regard the body as an intrinsic part of the human person, as if the soul were essentially complete in itself and the body were merely an instrument used by the soul.5 In opposition to dualisms both ancient and modern, the Church has always maintained that, while there is a distinction between the soul and the body, both are constitutive of what it means to be human, since spirit and matter, in human beings, “are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.”6 The soul does not come into existence on its own and somehow happen to be in this body, as if it could just as well be in a different body. A soul can never be in another body, much less be in the wrong body. This soul only comes into existence together with this body. What it means to be a human person necessarily includes bodiliness. “Human beings are physical beings sharing a world with other physical beings.”

Human bodiliness is, in turn, intrinsically connected with human sexual differentiation. Just as every human person necessarily has a body, so also human bodies, like those of other mammals, are sexually differentiated as male or female: “Male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27).8 Saint John Paul II reminded us that, in the Book of Genesis, we learn that “Man is created ‘from the very beginning’ as male and female: the life of all humanity—whether of small communities or of society as a whole—is marked by this primordial duality.”9 The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms: “Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. ‘Being man’ or ‘being woman’ is a reality which is good and willed by God.”

So Catholic theology, as I understand regards it as impossible for the soul to be in the wrong body because body and soul develop together, are one thing, not separate, and will be resurrected together on judgement day.

No, I meant catholic with a small c!

That's so interesting (and I think really positive).

It directly addresses the question I raised at the start of this thread. As you say, the US Catholic Church is saying even if you do believe in a soul, it's inseparable from the physical body, and soul being in wrong body isn't possible.

They're saying properly understood, Catholicism doesn't believe the soul is 'in tension' with the body, as I speculated. It's not dualistic in that way.

Yes, I didn't mean to imply otherwise, sorry if that's what it sounded like.

In my experience though, when people have the idea that religious believers, or those who believe in some sort of God as first principle, are unique in that their first principle is faith based (that is to say, an unprovable assumption,) they are almost always straightforward empirical-materialists, or occasionally humanists. They seem to think that empirical materialism is a self-evident truth, but not an assumption.

I have a vague notion that people who have left a faith system might be more inclined to adopt this different faith system (gender theory), because it fills a "belief void". If you perceive your new faith system to be scientific fact and/or not religious at all (you don't recognize it as religious) and/or you see it as in opposition to your old faith (ie justifying that you left that faith).

Thank you for listening to people of faith. As an evangelical Christian I believe that we are made in God's image, male and female. I don't believe that can change or that God has put male souls into female bodies by mistake. God knit me together in my mother's womb and knew me before I was born. I wasn't assigned sex or gender at birth. Our souls are part of us. I think there are a lot of confused people around who need help. Lopping off body parts and taking drugs isn't the right help for most ( all?) of them. Trans identity seems to provide a welcoming community sense which for many people is lacking in this world. I don't know lots about the theology of souls but I don't believe in reincarnation. I believe our bodies will be raised with Christ on the last day. I think there seems to be some ( maybe more American) Christians who might be accused of 'transing the gay away' and being more comfortable with a trans child than a gay one. (Nb They are still gay if they are attracted to people of the same sex). I don't think I've come across it in UK evangelical circles. Although, as in the general population, there are Christians struggling with identity.

Also worth considering the studies on the human brain about how religious beliefs tend to work, and also that much of the behaviour going on around this political movement mimics behaviour previously seen in religious extremism, standards of righteousness, social in crowds, punishing sinners.

To what extent is this a society without a meaningful group faith coming up with a very incoherent alternative one that fulfils the performance and behaviour needs?

liwoxac and demi colon have covered what I would have said were I as eloquent!
But - many nominal Christians have no idea that they are, in fact, Platonists and that Christians see the body and soul as one entity.

“To what extent is this a society without a meaningful group faith coming up with a very incoherent alternative one that fulfils the performance and behaviour needs?”

I really believe this is the case. I think that quite a large number of people, the soul belief data back this up, have an inbuilt need for religious/spiritual/faith expression. It is a part of being human, we see see in all times, cultures, places across the planet.

Isn’t there a saying that nature abhors a void?

In the modern era it seems that traditional religious beliefs have become somewhat shameful, there is a tendency to look down on adherents to traditional beliefs as if they are not very intelligent or intellectual, as if they are irrational, gullible and of course more and more there is outright hostility to people of faith because there is an assumption that they are all sexist, bigoted or have terrorist tendencies.

For many people religious belief provides community, meaning, purpose, an ethical framework, inspiration, a connection to ancestors and the past more generally, hope for the future and I would venture that through community, ritual, wisdom of various ancient texts, art, music etc it provides quite a mental health buffer too.

To me it looks fairly obvious that some of the adherents of gender identity/queer theory are seeking some of those things which in past times they would have got from participating in mainstream religions.

So what I’m saying in my previous post is that particularly for younger people today, if they have a strong need for religious belonging and expression, something more than being individually or privately “spiritual” there aren’t many socially acceptable or respected options.

The belief that some special people have a body which is the opposite sex to the soul is absolutely respected by their peers, but also by businesses, financial institutions, technology companies and the state and its institutions.

The reaction by the Starbucks employee on one of the other threads, to me, shows a similar reaction as some might have or have had in the past to religious or sacred beliefs being severely disrespected. The believers in gender identity are told that gender identity is sacred and that only those people or non people who are completely beyond the pale would blaspheme against it.

The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

This belief is central to virtually all Catholic moral and religious doctrine.

PomegranateOfPersephone · Today 12:55
To me it looks fairly obvious that some of the adherents of gender identity/queer theory are seeking some of those things which in past times they would have got from participating in mainstream religions

I agree, but in that case, re the OP, what do we make of the former head of Stonewall having been Catholic? What do we think his motivation might have been?

Lapsed fundamentalist Catholic looking for an alternative? What is known about him?

Yup. All of this.

From someone with a religious faith.

She's a she, Ruth Hunt. I don't know much more than that she says she's a practising Catholic, but she's definitely a she.

@ScrollingLeaves you are welcome!
Thank you for your kind words 🙏 😊 God Bless! 💛

She's a she, Ruth Hunt. I don't know much more than that she says she's a practising Catholic, but she's definitely a she
Thank you for the correction. I just went and looked that up too. (I am not sure whom I was thinking of when I said a man.)

She seems to have started the “TWAW get over it” era, and also to still be a practising Catholic.

Maybe she does think of male souls and female souls swopping bodies. If she were simply thinking that people are what they are, and we should be kind, it would be easier to understand her.

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/19/ruth-hunt-stonewall-moral-responsibility-fight-trans-people

Helen Joyce and I believe also Kathleen Stock are lapsed Catholics. Do we think Catholicism might have influenced them in a significant way too.

I am not convinced that Ruth’s previous Catholicism has much bearing on her actions at Stonewall or her beliefs in queer theory and gender identity.

Maybe she does think of male souls and female souls swopping bodies. If she were simply thinking that people are what they are, and we should be kind, it would be easier to understand her.

If this is her belief than we can all be sure she is not a practising Catholic as this goes against basic Catholic teachings. * *

Sorry, she is apparently currently practising. Well, even so she perhaps compartmentalises it. A bit like Joe Biden, and Boris Johnson and lots of other people. I don’t think she is translating it to gender identity rather she holds those two beliefs in tension or she doesn’t genuinely believe one or the other thing at the moment.

Absolutely, and it's interesting to read the Catholic statement on soul/body as being indivisible.

Often I guess we are stuck on a very basic, blunt version of religious teachings and forget there is dissent, or at last a variety of nuanced opinions within even individual congregations, let alone churches, let alone faiths!

'Buddhism' for example, being the religion/structure I have most experience of, is made up of many different - and wildly differing - schools, with different histories, cultures and doctrines. And within all of them, much difference of opinion (and sometimes ignorance, and misunderstanding, to be fair, too).

Yes, I was just thinking about conservative (small c) versus reactionary when I read your post.

I agree that there are both types in each group, but that, as with transactivists, it’s the angry atheists with a superiority complex who tend to be prominent. I think there are fewer loud, angry conservatives because being conservative is unfashionable and probably doesn’t attract so many angry, young and wannabe-young, older men.

I also wonder how much it's a case of 'being kind' meaning being willing to say something for someone else's benefit while knowing perfectly well that it's factually absolutely untrue.

Catholicism for years has had transubstantiation - who actually, really believes that the priest turns the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood? As opposed to it being a symbolic representation not to be taken as actual factual truth?

Catholic theology is that humans are a unity of body and soul. There are two different ways of having a body: male, and female. Both are good and part of God's plan. Sidebar: claims that Aquinas and Augustine called women "defective males" or similar are incorrect and based on mistranslations of the original writings which I believe were in Latin (not a theology scholar or anything).

In Catholic theology, suffering, disability, and death, are consequences of Original Sin. Although many people think of Original Sin as saying that it's your own fault if life is cr@p, it's essentially saying the opposite: we are meant to have a good life, but because of this implacable factor of original sin, sometimes we don't. Because of the wounds inflicted on us by original sin, we need healing (Jesus Christ, basically). OS is not a science concept, it's a metaphysical concept. With this concept, gender dysphoria is something that causes suffering that is not your fault. The suffering is from the dysphoria, not from having the "wrong" body. Gender dysphoria would be in the same category as any other suffering inflicted by illness/disability, e.g. measles, lupus, etc.

There isn't a final answer yet by the Catholic Church on what types of treatment for gender dysphoria would be licit - there are some documents but a lot of pushback, so it's in flux. Bodily mutilation normally is illicit but women can have mastectomies to treat/prevent cancer, because of "law of double effect." So mastectomies are not always disallowed. Likewise, opposite-sex hormones - lots of people take hormones licitly for other reasons e.g. HRT for menopausal women, Thyroid hormones for hypothyroid, etc. So cross-sex hormones is not a clear cut thing either. But you have to balance risk and benefit and part of the key is what does healing look like? If you are born male, then Catholic theology would be that being healed would mean being happy in your male body. Trying to become female if not born female would not be a type of healing, and would be impossible in Catholic teaching.

That's a basic overview but Catholic theology on such issues is complicated. But a definite thing is that male cannot become female because that is how God gave us our bodies and to be born male is not a disability, nor is being born female a disability. (i.e. You can't heal what's not broken).

By this reasoning, Catholic Church should be against allowing males to be in private spaces of females, e.g. where females get undressed etc. Some liberal Catholics apparently are opposing this. I have been trying to figure out why. I think it is basically about 'Be Kind" and the idea that Jesus wouldn't exclude anyone. I haven't quite worked out why Catholic pro-gender-ideology advocates think it's ok to expect women and girls to accept males in our private spaces, but if I extrapolate from the arguments I've seen used by liberal Catholics who agree with gender ideology, the basic idea would be that girls and women should be willing to make a sacrifice of our private spaces to save the lives of transgender people who would otherwise be suicidal. Again, this would be a distortion of Catholic teaching but you wouldn't know that if you didn't understand what the Church teaches about matters where sexual differentiation is important. This is another matter in flux and I'm fighting hard as a practicing Catholic to make sure my voice is heard speaking up for women and girls.

I suspect that there is no real correlation between religious believers whose faith teaches them that the soul exists and gender identity ideologues. Any concept of a gender identity / soul equivalence is likely the result of ideological cherry picking by those grasping at anything that they think backs up their worldview. This is why we hear so much about things that are irrelevant to human sex and reproduction, such as clownfish, while myriad relevant biological facts and examples are handwaved away.