Unmaking Man and Woman

Dear Apologist, someone told me Catholics ignore the distinction between “gender” and “sex” – and “gender” determines whether someone is a man or woman.  How do I respond?


The distinction between sex and gender is the hallmark of Modern Gender Theory.  In this vocabulary, “sex” refers to a person’s biology as male or female.  “Gender” refers to a psychological self-identification - a perception of how one’s personality fits into the scheme of manhood and womanhood.

There is nothing inherently wrong with making these distinctions and naming them.  In essence all that’s being said is there’s a difference between biology and psychology – between body and psyche.  That’s really nothing new or revolutionary.

No, what is new (and problematic) with Modern Gender Theory is what it does with those concepts.  Namely, it asserts that “gender” is the aspect which defines what a person is.  To use some technical language, it asserts that “gender” is determinative of one’s ontology.

So suppose a biologically male person identifies as a woman, that means he literally is a woman and she should be publicly regarded as such.  (Or else!)

Now, there is an incoherence in this philosophy… and it is very easy to point out.  All you have to ask is:

“What do you mean by the word ‘woman’?  Please define that term for me.  What is a ‘woman’?”

As Catholics, we join every human culture in history in recognizing that the body expresses our nature.  It is the seat of your ontology – what you are.

We effortlessly apply this standard in every other area of thought.  How do you know the difference between a cat and a horse?  By their bodies.  Even if you saw a cat prancing like a horse, no one stops and wonders if the cat really is a horse.

I call this the Natural-Classical understanding – and defining the word “woman” under this framework is simple:

Woman (n): An adult human female.  

But for someone adhering to Modern Gender Theory the question becomes unanswerable.  Their starting point is that biology has nothing to do with being a man or woman.  So that’s ruled out of any definition.  However, nor can they appeal to things like:

• Clothing styles
• Aptitudes
• Interests
• Personality traits  
• Modes of thinking
• Ways of socializing

Doing so immediately invites questions like:

"Are you saying a woman cannot be interested in football?" 

"Are you saying a man cannot be sensitive and nurturing?"   

"Seeking consensus make one less of a man?” 

"So a woman can't be competitive?"

The answer to which is, “Well… umm… no, but…”

In the end the terms “man” and “woman” become totally undefinable because there is no criteria which can be used.  All that’s left is…

Woman (n): Someone who claims to be a woman.

… which is a completely meaningless statement.  Under that definition, I could claim to be a “woman” without changing anything else in my life.  Then I could demand public recognition of my newfound, arbitrary womanhood.  (or else!)

What most adherents of Modern Gender Theory don’t realize is they cannot even articulate the sentence: “I identify as a woman” without first stealing the concept of “woman” from the Natural-Classical framework.  That’s why the only truly consistent believers in Modern Gender Theory are those who have rejected binary paradigm entirely.

So perhaps a fitting reply to your friend's challenge would be:

“Why should I abandon my concepts of man and woman and adopt yours?  Your philosophy makes those concepts meaningless.”