What is behind the Gender Ideology?

March 28, 2012
Source: District of the USA

In this Pastor's Corner, the issue of gender ideology is briefly examined, particularly about the philosophical / biological reality that the sex makes the gender—not the other way around.

Pastor's Corner for Third Sunday of Advent (December 11, 2011)

Much could be said about the abuse of language. As a Trojan horse to dismantle the city, words which seem   friendly or innocent are used today to bring death to society. Such are the terms “gender”, “parent” and “heterosexual couple”, used respectively instead of “sexuality”, “father/mother” and “family.”

A conference by Msgr. Anatrella[1] given at Rome this past November clarifies many points on this matter. The “gender theory” uses three main avenues to destroy the family by eroding the fundamental notions of man and woman and their relationship:

  1. the social construction of sexuality;
  2. the sexual orientation of each individual and
  3. the relation of power between man and woman.[2]

1. Until now, everyone has followed common sense that the sex makes the gender. The human person is male or female according to one's biological constitution which, implying a certain kind of education, is the base of the specific psychology. It followed that homosexual behavior was considered as being against the order of nature, thus anti-natural. Now, in order to explain and justify homosexual behavior, modern ideologues affirm that the gender makes the sex. Thus masculine and feminine behavior would not correspond necessarily to the biological sex. For them, “the sex is a social category”, meaning that it corresponds to the desires of each in connection with the “construction” of the social models. Also, as being dependent on desire and education, but no longer on nature, the gender could be changed.

Yet such an approach is based on puerile argumentation. Social influence cannot affect the subject so greatly that the person’s gender is determined solely through social influence. “The sexual identity is inscribed on each cell of the body and can be determined by the ADN test. This is not subject to change.” Male and female identities rest on the being[3] of the person itself. “Agere sequitur esse” says the saying: one acts (or not, in the case of disorders) according to the physiological and psychological construction made by the Creator, although original sin and poor education may twist the plan of God and induce disordered tendencies.

The gender ideologues “denature” the sexual difference in order to achieve the equality between men and women more efficiently, to the point of rendering them similar, and of legitimizing any sexual orientations whatsoever. To be a man or a woman would be a mere question of personal and free preference.

2. This ideology is also used to draw anthropological conclusions which institute particular realities like homosexuality, but also to modify the sense of human sexuality. If the male and female identities are no longer rooted by God in the nature of beings by means of sexual differences and complementarity, but left to free choice, the use of sexuality itself happens to be disconnected from its objective and realistic goal: generation (i.e., procreation).

Here, we are facing a dilemma between practice, as it is lived between men and women (men and women, because they are such, and not because they want to be such, thus having sexual intercourse in order to procreate), and a system of analysis, of conceptual representation codified by the gender theory which play with words pretending to free oneself from the reality of things.

Despite its flaws, this ideological current is inspiring political decisions in first world countries. In others, like Africa or Asia, it imposes the “new colonialism” of this modern Western thought, under the pressure of international institutions to the point of destabilizing society in a way similar to Marxism.

The Church calls us to respect all persons in their dignity but this does not mean that she agree with sexual practices which depart from the dignity of human sexuality nor that she admits marriage and adoption by same sex “couples.” It is an abuse of language to speak here of “couples” and of “family” since both always imply something only represented by sexual differences and the generative couple.

3. The gender ideology’s main aim is to give equal rights to all persons. The pretension to spread marriage to persons of the same sex in the name of equality is both nonsensical and an anthropological transgression since only a male and a female make an alliance which supposes complementarity and therefore sexual differences, whereas certain people make believe that marriage could be contracted on the mere basis of sexual orientation.

In line with this, the gender ideology intends to re-invent and solve the relations of authority between men and women and the prescription of their mutual roles. But injustice and mistreatment cannot be solved by emancipating women from the social role of spouse and mother, by marking their autonomy and independence from man and by liberating themselves from the “unjust constraints” of maternity. The promotion of contraception and abortion by means of the modern notion of reproductive health will bring neither peace to women nor more respect and responsibility to men, let alone peace between men and women.

Only the will of the Creator, with the help of grace, can bring peace and joy by instilling justice and charity. That is the good news that the angels sang on Christmas Eve by announcing the coming of Emmanuel, the Savior.


1 Msgr. Tony Anatrella, a psychoanalyst, and specialist in social psychiatry.

2 On the broader topic of the new health agenda, see http://100777.com/nwo/barbarians  under the title “The New Order of Barbarians”, dated 1969.

3 A report destined for the UN debates on transsexuality and gender confirms that “the sexual identity is inscribed on each cell of the body and can be determined by the ADN test. This is not subject to change.” This is from Psycholathology of Sex Reassignment Surgery by Richard Fitzgibbons and associates, June 2011. This report clearly shows that, for those who pretend to have a gender identity opposed to their biological structure, a surgical operation is not going to solve anything for a problem which is properly psychological.