Jan Bergstra & Laurens Buijs
Amsterdam Gender Theory Research Team
In the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), gender theory is a major topic that is mostly dismissed, but there are other voices. A striking example emerges in an interview in The Pillar with Cardinal Eijk. Cardinal Eijk argues that there is a multiplicity of gender theories and that he particularly disagrees with those (in his view extreme) forms of gender theory in which the determination of gender is left to a person’s own discretion while biological aspects need no longer play a role of importance.
We talk about versions of gender theory rather than different gender theories in our papers to emphasize that there is nevertheless considerable overlap between the different gender theories, and the common part of the different gender theories we then see as THE gender theory. One can then extend this (core) gender theory to a more complete version in various ways. Be that as it may, we are in full agreement with Cardinal Eijk on this variation of theories. With his opposition to his appointed extreme version of gender theory, we also agree. We name this extreme form in earlier work (e.g., AGTRT-BF16) as co-essentialism (also called counter-essentialism, see AGTRT-M1). Whereas essentialism links gender exclusively to biological factors, co-essentialism does the diametric opposite: does not link gender to biological factors at all. As we described in AGTRT-BF16, by gender critical we mean attitudes that reject both essentialism and co-essentialism.
Read more about co-essentialism and the importance of a gender critical response to it:
The Netherlands needs a gender-critical movement
Cardinal Eijk quotes Pope Francis with “there is a difference between sex and gender.” Without hesitation, we also endorse this assertion, but the quoted statement leaves much room for further and necessary refinement. For example, it matters a lot whether one links the concepts of man and woman primarily to biological sex (as in transgender legislation of say 40 years ago) or to a more “free” interpretation of gender (which is what we ourselves would advocate).
We read the interview with Cardinal Eijk as also advocating a gender-critical attitude. Within that, there is still a wide variety of options. In choosing between those options, what arguments one makes against essentialism and against co-essentialism come into play. Presumably there our vision and Cardinal Eijk’s vision do diverge, and he would advise us to adjust our search for a MotR(middle of the road) version of gender theory in a more essentialist direction.
The German bishops support the (recent) German bill that sees determination of gender (male, female or neutral) of a person as an action (choice, responsibility, decision, observation) of this person. There is an unspecified limitation, namely that this freedom of choice should not be abused. But in principle, the choice is free and can be revised almost indefinitely. This German bill realizes an extreme version of gender theory that starts from co-essentialism and can be seen as “woke.” We do not agree, and we suspect that Cardinal Eijk, when asked, would not agree to that bill either. This is in remarkable contrast to the German episcopate.
The magisterium of the RCC (the official voice of the Vatican, or more precisely of the Holy See) also has a view on gender theory. We refer to that view below as gender theory GT-RCC-Mag (see also AGTRT-5). GT-RCC-Mag sees no role for the notion of gender in addition to (i.e., different from) biological sex(biological sex, or b-sex). B-sex is determined by an expert after birth. The result is male or female. In case of problems in determining the b-sex of a newborn child, modern biomedical science can be conclusive, such as through genetics. The b-sex so assigned to a person is and remains also the gender of that person during his/her lifetime. He/she sees one’s gender as a gift from God that is accepted and embraced as it is given. There is no role for sexual transition or for transgendering. There is no role for neutral gender (non-binary gender).
We believe that GT-RCC-Mag is contrary to modern science because it does not recognize the medical relevance of transsexuality as a cure for gender dysphoria, while science does not doubt that phenomenon. The science is not uniform on how to address gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults, but that does not mean that gender dysphoria and its resolution through gender transition would be fundamentally controversial. Nor is the science unambiguous about the modalities of transition to neutral gender. But that there can (and sometimes must) be such transitions is no longer an issue.
The USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bisshops) uses a version of gender theory that is almost similar to GT-RCC-Mag, but differs from it regarding the determination of birth sex (see also AGTRT-5).
Our conclusion is that (i) gender theory is very much alive in the circles of the RCC, but (ii) that a unified view of gender theory has not yet been developed within the RCC, and (iii) that the issues facing the RKK in doing so share important similarities with our search for a MotR(middle of the road) version of gender theory as described in AGTRT-8.
So there is more diversity in thinking about gender within the RCC than many might think. And then things can quickly gain momentum, as a recent article in The Guardian on the Vatican’s current turnaround on the issue of transgender shows. The existence of transgender persons is now recognized without equivocation, and transgender persons would also be allowed to perform formal roles in RCC rituals. Provided it does not cause too much commotion (“public scandal”) in a community, an otherwise not unusual limitation in the RCC context for a topic such as this.
Leave a Reply