(from vatican insider:)
“Benedict XVI criticised the gender theory, citing a study by the Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim and Simone de Beauvoir’s famous phrase: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). “These words,” the Pope explained, “lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious.” According to this new theory of sexuality “people dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity… They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves.””
Not really, scientifically speaking, is not obvious at all, genetically, biologically and psychoanalytically humans have been demonstrated in several different types of experiments, specifically analyzing more reliable “unconscious response,” also at cerebral activity level, to be in percentage of over 90% “potentially” bi-sexual, “and” the environment has been proven to be a contributing factor in the development of predominant orientation.
Additionally, it is a fact now acknowledged that gender identity, and perception, is highly dependent upon chemical distributions, particularly testosterone and steroids stimulators for the male to female component and estrogens, progestogens, antiandrogens and steroids stimulators for the female to male component.
Finally, on the theological side, not being an expert but looking at the original teachings, before the Vatican developed an obsession for sex, and started painting underwear over work of art, the “there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb” refers most likely to both physically castrated and biologically, genetically, chemically “and even psychologically/environmentally castrated,” if we may want to take the “most realistic under scientific evidence” explanation of the original wording, instead than the voodoo interpretation, and in so, it would appear “wiser” to accept the original “He who is able to accept it, let him accept it,” or not ?