Benedict XVI: Gender theory puts children’s dignity at risk

Benedict XVI: Gender theory puts children’s dignity at risk

(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 ?


4 thoughts on “Benedict XVI: Gender theory puts children’s dignity at risk

  1. Just thinking out loud here: it would be so cool (maybe… it would depend on how it played out…) if humans could be born androgenous (which I mean in this case to be without gender, not both). But yeah, gender’s hard to pin down. Nice post!

    • Who knows, we may get there at some point, when people start accepting their nature as it is, instead than as it may be convenient for a domination agenda of competitive reproduction. Soon the population growth ‘will have’ to stop somehow, and reproduction will have to become a regulated social matter. The age of the holy rabbits is over.

      • Being androgynous? I don’t think that’s biologically possible (what with their only being two types, X and Y, of sex chromosomes). That’s why we can make hermaphrodites (which express both because there’s an extra X) but not androgens (who would express neither). I’m not really sure how you would mutate a third type of chromosome. But if you did, I don’t think it would ever become a viable ‘third sex’ because my understanding (which is, admittedly limited to one biology class) is that chromosomal crossover results in sterility – like with Ligers.

        Ultimately I don’t think it would be possible for humans to evolve an androgynous gender at this point. We’re too biologically advanced to switch up the chromosome count. I think we just have to wait another 5 billion years and see what evolution does this time. It’s the only way we’re getting a viable (one that can create more of itself) third sex. But who knows? Maybe this time we’ll get like, 5 or 6 sexes. Like Species 8472 from Star Trek.

  2. LOL, no, I’m not in that business, but know from readings that lots of folks are interested in creating chimeras, probably an even more difficult task.

    For now would be happy going in the androgynous/inter-sexed direction, in terms of gender identity or at least behavior, once the concept is accepted, rationally, it may become more popular, who knows, maybe a future society may prefer an intermediate and/or dual sex, or the combination ‘planned’ of all four, have no crystal ball, I understand the dual sex case is rare, but then do we necessary need to ‘evolve ?,’ in natural means ?, maybe after a singularity everything may look different, androgyny and/or dual sex may become in high demand 😉 very egalitarian and politically correct, besides probably more intellectually stimulating.

    Sexual life does not stop at reproduction, actually, for us older folks, is a ‘benediction’ being sterile at our age, at this time in history, sex has never been more pleasant, not being enslaved by the reproduction frenzy noose around the neck, of the monkeys competitive baby making gig, and annexed moral crap.

    Sterile, hybrids are sterile, but that does not prevent recreating them, from the parents trees, there is not even the need of genetic modification there. Humanity is very limited and quite disgusting, looking at history, a creepy species of predatory bloody superstitious monkeys, which does not mind destroying itself and his environment for pure bestial instincts. Being sterile for the largest part of humanity would be a blessing, at the least. Being extinct would be a blessing to the other species and to the rest of life on the planet, humans f***k anything they touch, really.

    It does not take 8 billions people to keep the stupid human monkey species running, at the time of tioba, 75k years ago, it seems there were no more than 10k people on the planet, look at it now. IMVHO ‘unregulated’ procreation is good for the animals at the zoo, same level of civilization. We could do much better if it was not for bestial primitive instincts dominating society.

    Here if you look at the presumed intelligent design of humans, some functionality (and lack thereof,) would tell that the designer is a retard. Probably evolution is a process to preserve life up to the point that a species realizes that evolution is a primitive concept, and overcomes it with engineering, and that is probably the step into a type one civilization, which probably due to the nature of the primate, has better probability of failure than success.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s