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

I think it's a lot more "being kind", and, "I need to think this if I am to fit in with the political left", than anyone is worrying about human nature and how to consistently explain someone being a woman when they are the opposite.

Of course some of them have to try to justify it, but then I think it's more appealing to "social constructs" rather than anyone literally being born in the wrong body.

Maybe some hear the stuff about a woman being a social construct from their fellow lefties and think they really do have a more advanced and sophisticated position.

Yes, at root, very few people genuinely believe in a literal sense that people change sex.

Surely?

I think some people do believe they literally change sex. As in a boy could then get pregnant and have a baby because they think it's possible to really become a woman. Seems to be a rather shaky hold on biology, fuelled by tiktok.

“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.”

So for me this comes down to personality, not religious beliefs, political or philosophical beliefs but in my experience, a certain kind of woman who is a pathological people pleaser, has a kind of martyr syndrome. I imagine it stems in large part from childhood experiences. This kind of woman is rife in the charity sector, the caring professions and I imagine in various churches too, the kind who probably agrees in part with Andrea Long Chu - see other thread, on Pulitzer Prize Winner, that womanhood is about self sacrifice, about having no boundaries, no self respect, just putting your body at the service of others. I can see how the message of Christianity or Buddhism (other religions and philosophies too) could be misinterpreted this way, selfless self sacrifice for the desires of others. It is a kind of masochism.

I think many believe that they are in some sense intersex. Not so much those immersed in it as activists, but regular left wing progressive people who think it's inexplicable that anyone would have voted for Brexit, or Donal dTrump, unless they were racist. It never crosses there mind that it's even a question that it's a real medical thing and people who are skeptical are bigots.

I think so too, especially the children and teenagers who are declared or declare themselves the opposite sex to their actual sex. There are some who begin treatment believing that it will actually be able to change their sex and that they will become a fully functioning member of the opposite sex. It is very sad, adults have lied to them and naturally why wouldn’t children believe adults in a position of authority, parents, teachers, health professionals, etc.

And that personality type can often be combined with a kind of pleasure in putting down those who are seen as transgressing what is right.

I always think of busybody church ladies from Victorian novels.

All very interesting points.

Plus a quick zoom around AIBU and the relationships board quickly locates the few but persistent women who will tell the woman locked in the bathroom with a potentially broken nose to go and give her partner a big hug and make him his favourite dinner because he probably only punched her and tried to strangle her because he's stressed and she isn't helping him enough.

The women whose self image is tied up in shaming other women into surrendering boundaries and putting aside their own needs - I remember a poster a few years back who was one of the 'yes so your MiL burned the house down and ate the children but you just don't like her, do you!' type, and eventually rather heart breakingly admitted that she'd suffered horribly at the hands of an abusive MiL for years, and basically was damned if another woman was going to get to escape it because she hadn't.

The type of woman whose social credentials are all tied up in the right image and virtue signals and whose values and beliefs are a kind of costume, and who has a lot of anxiety tied up in social status in the group.

Dickens 200 years back near enough was taking the mickey out of the Better Than You people whose status was tied up in moral superiority (and wealth) in their community, and who achieved it by shouting Christian slogans while being capable of appalling cold eyed cruelty and vanity - Mr Murdstone just one example. They knew all the words and shouted them, used them to meet their needs and further their agendas, but their actions showed it was as skin deep as TWAW can be from many speakers.

It's where religion provides an outlet for performance and self image and status, and meets with anthropology and psychology.

that personality type can often be combined with a kind of pleasure in putting down those who are seen as transgressing what is right.

The Authoritarian Follower personality. Well worth some research, there's a lot of it about in this political movement.

This has been a very interesting thread to read, OP. Thanks everyone.

Agreed! Thanks to all who have contributed x

Fascinating thread, thanks OP and all contributors. I’ve learned a lot today. I’ve often wondered about this.

I was brought up Catholic, and found it quite painful to leave though I was infuriated by the sexism.

In decades of activism (feminist, environmental and on social issues, I’ve noticed that many other lefties and activists come from a strong religious background. Strong clear sense of right and wrong, willingness (urge?) for self-sacrifice, belief in a cause that’s more important than the self.

Do you have any good links for more information about this? I have searched online but not really found anything satisfactory.

This is a quick overview:

https://issuepedia.org/Authoritarian_follower#:~:text=The%20authoritarian%20follower%20is%20one%20of%20the%20two,aggression%20in%20the%20name%20of%20their%20authorities%20

This is totally inaccurate. Catholics believe that the soul leaves the body at the point of death and in the future will be reunited with a new spiritual body (Paul spoke at length about this in his 1st letter to the Corinthians). Catholics accept cremation but as the body is sacred it is not acceptable for the ashes to be scattered. They should be buried in a cemetery with a headstone so that the dead can be remembered and prayed for. As others have mentioned God made only male and female in Catholic belief.

Catholics believe that the soul leaves the body at the point of death and in the future will be reunited with a new spiritual body (Paul spoke at length about this in his 1st letter to the Corinthians).

For clarity, St. Paul says the risen body is “spiritual ” (15:44). These will be the same bodies people had in earthly life—but our resurrection bodies will not die and, for the righteous, they will be transformed into a glorified state, freed from suffering and pain, and enabled to do many of the amazing things Jesus could do with his glorified body (see 1 Cor. 15:35–44, 1 John 3:2).

Yes (all this according to Catholicism), the soul leaves the body at the point of death. The human being constituted by body+soul dies, and no longer exists qua human being.

And, yes, body+soul (the human being) will exist post-resurrection. It's a little misleading to describe this as being 'in the future', however, at least as far as the soul is concerned. The soul, you see, does not exist in time between death and resurrection. Does it exist outside of time? Well, ...

... It's probably simpler to say the soul does not exist at all between death and resurrection, since after all body and soul are inseparable; the soul is the (in re, remember) Form of the living body, after all.

Apostles, yes, and Paul and succeeding theologians (Thomist or not), write of this stuff, faute de mieux, in metaphor - 'spiritual' and the like. (Faute de mieux: le mieux n'existe ...)

Some find all (or much, most, some ... ) of this hard to swallow. That's OK: no-one says you have to go to mass any more; no-one insists children are taught the Catechism as fact. If you think such metaphysical nonsense a crock of shite, you're allowed to say so.

Unless - here's the rub - unless the metaphysical nonsense, the crock of shite, involves gendered souls: then, we are told, we're not allowed to deny its sense in public; then we have to allow our children to be catechised.

This is unacceptable. We should treat gender-metaphysics/theology as we do others. Toleration does not - cannot - entail willy-nilly acceptance of others' beliefs.

I must maintain my right to say - and teach my children and grandchildren - this (the truth): there is no such thing as gender identity; trans women are men ... And so on.

@liwoxac you wrote:-
It's a little misleading to describe this as being 'in the future'

I didn't actually use the term 'in the future'. The bold writing in my post with the words 'in the future' are a direct copy of @sequin2000 's post. Hope this makes sense! 🙏

Can I ask @liwoxac are you Catholic? You have written:-
"The soul, you see, does not exist in time between death and resurrection. Does it exist outside of time? Well, ...

... It's probably simpler to say the soul does not exist at all between death and resurrection, since after all body and soul are inseparable; the soul is the (in re, remember)Formof the living body, after all."

I ask because what you have written is incorrect!
As Catholics, we believe that when a person dies, the soul separates from the body. He then stands before God in judgment. Remember that the soul is really "who" we are: while the body lies in death, our soul — who we are — lives on and returns to the Lord for judgment. The Catechism clearly teaches, "Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of Heaven — through purification or immediately, — or immediate and everlasting damnation" (No. 1022).

Let's dissect this teaching: When we die, our soul stands in judgment immediately. We will have to account for our lives, for the good that we have done and for the sins we have committed. We call this the particular judgment because it is particular to each person. If we are free of all sin and the hurt caused by sin, we immediately will be welcomed into Heaven, where we will enjoy the beatific vision, seeing God face to face. If we have died with venial sins or the hurt caused by sin, our Lord in His love and mercy will first purge and heal the soul in the place called Purgatory; after this purgation and healing, our soul will then be welcomed into Heaven. However, if we have died rejecting God, with mortal sins and with no remorse for those mortal sins, then we will have damned ourselves to Hell; the firm rejection of God that we made in this life, will continue on in the next. This teaching is substantiated by our Lord's declaration to the repentant thief, St. Dismas: "This day you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). (Note that this teaching on the particular judgment was defined at the Second General Council of Lyons in 1274.)

At the end of time, our Lord will come again to judge the living and the dead. Our Lord taught in the Gospel of St. John: "The Father has given over to Him [Jesus] power to pass judgment because He is the Son of Man; no need for you to be surprised at this, for an hour is coming in which all those in their tombs shall hear his voice and come forth. Those who have done right shall rise to life; the evildoers shall rise to be damned" (John 5:27-29). Here again the Catechism teaches, "In the presence of Christ, who is Truth itself, the truth of each man's relationship with God will be laid bare. The Last Judgment will reveal even to its furthest consequences the good each person has done or failed to do during his earthly life" (No. 1039). Here is a judgment not only of the individual standing alone, but also as a member of society and before the whole community of mankind. Those who have already died and have been judged will remain in Heaven or Hell; those who have not died will now be judged and enter Heaven or Hell. Since after the final judgment, only Heaven and Hell will exist, St. Augustine and others speculated that all purification of the soul — for those already in Purgatory and now those faithful awaiting judgment at this final judgment — will be completed.

Quite a lot of Catholics do believe in transubstantiation. It's very much tied in with the Catholic view that the physical world is real and good.

MaterDei · Today 11:57
Thank you for taking g the time to explain these points on the basis of your evidently considerable knowledge.

Would I be wrong to feel, as I do, that my soul is one with me, but it is beyond being male or female? Not that I think of it very much.

(I am female, to be clear.)

Re: Catholic literal belief in transubstantiation

For clarity, St. Paul says the risen body is “spiritual ” (15:44)MateeeDei

As I know perfectly well there is no actual body or actual blood, for me, transubstantiation must be spiritual, like the spiritual body of resurrection in this reference from MaterDei yesterday. Or perhaps the Platonic ideal of Christ’s body and blood?

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/savage-minds-podcast/id1535634480?i=1000612882890

This podcast was really interesting Julian Vigo interviews Paul Kingsnorth, English author, living in Ireland, an (ex?)environmental activist, convert to Orthodox Christianity. They discuss gender identity. Absolutely fascinating in my opinion.

Looks fascinating – will definitely have a listen. Thanks for highlighting this.

Transubstantiation doesn't mean the bread and wine "literally" become the body and blood of Christ - if you are allergic to wheat or wine it will still cause an allergic reaction. If you put it in a mass spectrometer it will still read as wheat or wine. But it's also not just a symbol, that's why we genuflect towards the tabernacle when we enter a Church, it's why the tabernacle is kept locked outside of Mass so that the Eucharist can't be stolen and desecrated, and it's why the Mass is so important in Catholicism. The technical terms are "substance" and "accidents" but I don't fully understand the metaphysics.

I don't want a long discussion. But as it's Sunday, a little (and then you can have the last word, if you wish).

(Since you ask, I am a lapsed Catholic. Perhaps that makes me a kind of Catholic in the same way being a trans woman makes a man a kind of woman. Or perhaps not.)

I don't think what I wrote was incorrect. Let me try to explain.

There is a difficulty Christians who take an Aristotelian view of souls have when faced with all that "stands before God in judgement" schtick you explain so well. The difficulty is that an in re soul may not have quite the substantial kind of existence required for standing anywhere - by contrast to an ante rem soul which needs no body to underpin its existence and so can stand alone.

So, let's (cut matters short and) try to have our cake and eat it by thinking of in re souls that nevertheless are substantial ... of (Aristotelian) substantial forms (or Forms). Perhaps then, we can maintain that "the soul is the (in re) Form of the body" and yet allow the substantial Form to stand bodiless before God. Aquinas is our man for this.

Now, it's true, as Patrick Toner has it, that
"According to a common and venerable interpretation, St. Thomas Aquinas believed that human persons cease to exist at death and come back into being at the resurrection. This view - which I shall henceforth refer to as "the standard view" - has many defenders. Some recent authors who endorse the standard view are Anthony Kenny, Robert Pasnau, Patrick Lee, Robert George, Brian Davies and Leo Elders. ... [T]here are decisive reasons ... to accept the standard view."
(See Patrick Toner, Personhood in Death and St. Thomas Aquinas; History of Philosophy Quarterly, 26, 2; April 2009.)

Of course it's this 'standard view' that gave rise to the eleventh (iirc) article of the Creed, 'the resurrection of the body': live humans being essentially embodied souls (or ensouled bodies), the soul requires the body for its eternal life. And this is what I offered as a standard Catholic (Thomist) doctrine.

However, if you don't like this standard view - of a gap in human life between death and resurrection - because of the immediacy of "standing before God" after death (but prior to resurrection), don't worry. All is not lost. You're not necessarily a heretic!

Remembering that God himself, after all, exists outside of time, we can fill the gap by considering the substantial Form of the body - the soul - to be sufficiently substantial to stand alone ... albeit just not in time. For the soul (and contrary to the body), no time passes between death and resurrection, even though it be nevertheless substantial enough to stand before God.

Aquinas can be read as a kind of dualist in this way, so as a Catholic, you can take either the standard view or the 'out of time' view (or both - see how?) while still maintaining your justification by scripture and Church tradition. (Where 'justification' there means ... oh, enough.)

Of course many reading this will think it a load of nonsense. (A 'crock of shite', I may have said rather unmanneredly in an earlier post.) That's fine. Even Catholics have learned to live with non-believers, over the years. But we no longer allow Catholics to tell us what to believe, to indoctrinate our children or inculcate notions of substantial forms and the like into our laws.

-- Or Protestants. Or Buddhists. Or Zoroastrians. Or Muslims ... But trans believers? ... Aargh!

Please, trans believers, stop telling us what to believe. And leave our children and laws alone. There is no such thing as gender identity. And trans women are men.

Thanks for the chat.