Emmaus Road Publishing kindly sent me copies of two recent books of theirs focusing on a subject in which someone up there obviously discerned is an interest of mine: gender.
The books are: Metaphysics of Gender: The Normative Art of Nature and its Human Imitations and an anthology, Sexual Identity: The Harmony of Philosophy, Science and Revelation.
You can read descriptions of the books here and here.
Both add important points to the public conversation about this issue, particularly from the Catholic side of things. I’m going to talk about that, and then pull out some more general observations.
(After this post will come another – some time on Monday – with some links to other recent thoughts on this issue.)
Metaphysics of Gender is, as the title makes clear, a work of philosophy. If you have read Abigail Favale’s Genesis of Gender, you will find this a helpful expansion on the introduction she has provided.
In Metaphysics and Gender, Michele M. Schumacher offers a corrective to this distorted and distorting outlook, calling for the recovery of an anthropological vision rooted in recognition of the normative divine “art” of nature and of the likeness—and far greater unlikeness—between divine and human causality. Surveying contemporary transgender trends, Schumacher identifies and excavates their conceptual and ideological foundations in the gender theory of Judith Butler, the existentialist feminism of Simone de Beauvoir, and the atheistic existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre. To the erroneous philosophical presuppositions of these thinkers Schumacher contrasts the metaphysically grounded thought of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, advancing their positive account of the good of creation and of the meaning of ethical norms, human freedom and natural inclinations, and embodiment, and mounting a timely and trenchant defense of the divinely created human person.
What was most valuable to me was the discussion of freedom, contrasting the Sartre/de Beauvoir existentialist perspective with the Aristotelian/Thomistic view, and the source of identity in the former view – which informs the present gender ideology, as focused on desire.
Moving further, what even a casual follower of this issue will find illuminating is Schumacher’s elucidation of the role of the Other in the individuals desire-fueled journey to selfhood. In short: if each of us is forming our identity via the pursuit of desired ends, we will inevitably come into conflict. Further, it will become absolutely essential for my desire-grounded identity to be affirmed by others. Which is exactly the dynamic we see in the trans/gender ideology movement. If you question this, you are causing genocide, etc.
My relations with others are thus entirely governed by my manner of interiorizing what they reveal of my objective being. (79)
For when the Creator is no more, it is uniquely within the Other’s consciousness that my objective being is given to be . (148)
Sexual Identity is, as I said, an anthology. You can see the contents here. If you are unfamiliar with the debate, you will find the entire book helpful. At the very least, if you would like an upfront, honest account of what is at stake here, you should read the chapter on medical procedures and treatments by Patrick Lappert, MD – a retired plastic surgeon and, as it happens, permanent deacon in the Diocese of Birmingham, Alabama. It’s very good, very forthright and, most importantly, sets these procedures in the context of procedures of diagnoses and care in which medicine traditionally operates, finding them, unsurprisingly, wanting.
And you just might learn, as I did, some options that are considered if your thumb gets accidentally amputated….
Here are the more general thoughts reading these books – and other pieces over the weekend – prompted.
First – and this bears expansion in another post which hopefully I will get to someday – all of the insights offered in these and other philosophical, theoretically-rooted books are well worth reading, even necessary. But at the same time, they all seem to dance around something pretty basic: there’s some insane crap going on here and we have to stop enabling it.
I mean: you can talk all you want about the ways in which thinking about sex and gender has gotten messed up from de Beauvoir on, but at some point you just have to confront narcissistic, cluster B personalities, and the power they have in a community to center all the energy on them and just say: No.
But moving on…..
What strikes me once again is the absence of engagement between the faith-based critics of gender ideology and the secular, mostly feminist critics. One would think, reading each, that the other does not exist.
And of course, if you familiar with the scene, you know that there are continual disagreements about precisely that – about the level of engagement with the other side (of your side) that is wise or appropriate. Should feminist critics of gender ideology go on Tucker Carlson? Should they work together on legislation? And so on.
Well, as I have written before, these types of disagreements are to be expected in any social movement. Anyone who has studied the history of social movements, from 19th century abolitionism and women’s suffrage movements to the 20th century civil rights and pro-life movements, not to mention political parties themselves, knows that this is so and is to be expected.
So there is nothing earth-shattering about this tension.
But at the same time, I do think that there are elements of it that should be addressed.
So Schumacher, as fine as her work is, in her critiques of the doyenne of gender ideology, Judith Butler, does not acknowledge contemporary feminist critics of Butler – at all. And there are many, just one example being philosopher Kathleen Stock, the author of Material Girls. In general, to read these faith-grounded books, one would barely know that there is a strong pushback against gender ideology that is led by self-identified (pun intended) radical feminists. This is something I – and others with larger platforms – have critiqued, say, Matt Walsh for. As valuable as his work is, Walsh completely ignores the work of feminists working against the trans movement, both as intellectuals and as activists. In Europe, for example, from the UK to France to Spain, the only substantial interest groups working consistently and vociferously, often at great personal cost, against the trans ideology are women who would call themselves progressive and feminist.
Yes, it is true, that mainstream progressive and feminist groups in the US and in Europe have definitely been captured. No argument there. But the complexities of the situation mean that at the same time, the most prominent voices being raised against the capture, at least in Europe, are also progressive and feminist.
I am always surprised and disappointed to read faith-based critiques of gender ideology that completely ignore the contributions and voices of women who are from outside that world, just as I am always disappointed – but not at all surprised – that feminist critics of gender ideology are completely blind to the fact that the gnostic nominalism that declares I’m a woman because I say so emanates from the same gnostic nominalism that proclaims this entity in a uterus is a person worthy of life when I say so.
So, to be very specific on one aspect of this – misogyny. It is blindingly obvious that the energy fueling the aggressive, rage-filled gender activists who are yelling that they are women even though they have penises and who are insistent on being admitted to women’s spaces are men who hate women. Hate. And the word for that is: misogyny.
It’s a motivation that faith-based critics seem reluctant to consider. I don’t know why. Well, I could speculate, but I won’t. Let’s just say, that even if you are attached to the idea of certain roles and social presentations of men and women, even if you see feminism as a bad thing all around, it is still allowed to admit the existence of this thing called misogyny. This particular form of misogyny that we see acted out again and again in this landscape takes two particular forms. First, the form which does get attention from the faith-based critics – the misogyny that tells young women that they should rid themselves of their healthy female body parts and attempt to present themselves as males.
Secondly – and this is the energy that is fueling the activism: it’s men hating women simply because they want to be them – for various reasons, but it all comes down this: I want to be you, I can’t and despite all my efforts, I never will. So I hate you, you uterus-having, front hole-having chest-feeder.
Here’s what you need to do if you don’t understand this: Do a search for the reactions to Kellie-Jay Keen’s current Let Women Speak tour in Australia. Or any of her events – events that are centered on simply gathering in public spaces and listening to…women…biological…natal adult human females…speak…
“Nothing enrages a misogynist more than a woman saying ‘NO’.
More from me on gender issues here.
For current news updates, follow my Gender Critical list on Twitter.
For those who are into podcasts, I recommend The Witch Trials of JK Rowling. It’s doing a great job of delving into the backlash against feminists raising questions about the British self-ID proposal.
Absolutely!
On a personal note, two years ago my neighbor’s 20 year old son came home at Thanksgiving from a large very liberal state university and said he wanted to become a woman. There was no lead up to this. He seemed a bit geeky and quite the introvert but nothing every pointed to him wanting to be a woman.
The family is agnostic and he was a huge gamer (I’ve read in some papers that this can be one of the characteristics of people becoming trans). Also, he worked at a Starbuck’s where on his shift, 5 out of 7 workers were either gay/lesbian or trans!! This was during the height of the pandemic.
Anyway, the parents weren’t happy but went along to a point. The dad said there was no way he would pay for any surgeries or hormones. Now, 2 1/2 years later he has slowly gone back to his original boy’s name, clothes, no make-up. This is just to point out how wrong it is for people not to “encourage” rash decisions for surgeries/hormones ESPECIALLY for those under 18. These kids are confused. Thankfully, prayers (Catholic neighbors prayed for him), time and common sense seemed to have pulled this young man through.
This is heartening. There are a lot of people thinking about the connection between online life in general and gaming in particular to this phenomenon – since when you live in the gaming landscape, it is one of taking on and “living” in other, created identities.
Unfortunately, there are also very unwelcome allies:
“Anti-transgender activists clashed with pro-transgender rights activists outside state parliament on Saturday after an event held by controversial UK gender activist Kellie-Jay Keen. A group of men from the Nationalist Socialist Network marched along Spring Street, repeatedly performing the Nazi salute.”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/19/daniel-andrews-says-nazis-arent-welcome-as-victorian-government-considers-further-action-following-salutes
Many questions about that: https://tweetdeck.twitter.com/jo_bartosch/status/1637801732938903554/photo/1
Statement by Moira Deeming, a member of Parliament of Victoria who is a supporter of the Let Women Speak tour:
“After the event I was informed that these masked men had in fact mounted Parliament House steps outside of our view on the other end and performed a Nazi salute, and that members of the SFW group asked the police to make them leave, but were informed that the Police had no powers to move them on due to Labor’s removal of those powers.
The Let Women Speak event saw several women injured by the extreme left counter protestors who infiltrated the event. I was assaulted and injured, along with multiple other women, including one who was taken to hospital after being knocked unconscious. They also became violent with police and punched police horses, forcing the event to finish early. I condemn their actions, and call on others to condemn this violence against peaceful women.
I also condemn of the actions of the masked men in black who were later identified as Neo-Nazis, who gate-crashed the Let Women Speak event. Most of the LWS supporters did not realise who they were until they were being escorted out by Victoria Police, when they did the despicable Nazi salute.
I completely reject the beliefs of National Socialists (Nazis) and I have seen first-hand the impact that the Holocaust had on a family member.
None of those organising the event had any involvement with these men, as has been confirmed by Victoria Police, the Australian Jewish Association and all the organisers themselves.
If Daniel Andrews had not repealed the ‘move on’ laws, they could have been removed. The ‘move on’ laws need to be strengthened and I also welcome moves to ban the Nazi salute.
And I hope that the concerns of women and girls will finally be deemed worthy of attention.”
https://twitter.com/MoiraDeemingMP/status/1637691108280143873?s=20