Washington D.C., Dec 30, 2020 / 11:25 am (CNA).- This article is the first part of a two-part series on the Church, gender-critical feminists, and transgender ideology. Part two can be found here.
Mary Kate Fain doesn’t agree with the Catholic Church about anything. Or, nearly anything, at least. But she does agree with the Catholic take on gender and identity. And that’s cost her. A lot.
In July 2019, Fain wrote a piece critiquing non-binary gender identities. She questioned why so many of her female friends felt the need to shed their identities as women and to instead identify as “non-binary” – neither male nor female.
Fain published the piece on Medium, an online social publishing platform.
Not long after the article published, Fain was fired from her job as a software engineer. She claims her viewpoints are the reason she was let go.
“I guess one of my coworkers complained about the article and I was fired. And since then it just started the slew of cancellation,” Fain told CNA.
“I was canceled from conferences, and canceled for multiple groups that I was a volunteer in, et cetera. And it just really highlighted to me that they all wanted to shut me up, but what it proved was that there really is a need for a place for women to be able to say this.”
Since her firing, Fain, a millennial and freelance writer living just outside of Houston, founded 4W, an online publication that publishes articles analyzing radical feminist issues such as gender, male violence, sex positivity, and the portrayal of women in media. She is also co-founder of the feminist social media platform Spinster.xyz, and a volunteer with the Women’s Human Rights Campaign.
And she is just one of many “canceled” women.
Why women are being “canceled”
Fain, along with several other women writers, intellectuals, and activists, have been “canceled” for their conviction that women are adult human females, whose sex-based rights, such as the right to female-only spaces like bathrooms or sports teams or therapy groups, deserve protection.
This view is no longer seen as politically correct by some tastemakers and gatekeepers, because it is “trans-exclusionary” – to hold this view means to hold that a man cannot “become” a woman because he identifies as one, and vice versa.
“…this is not something that you’re supposed to say,” Fain said. “We’re supposed to just blindly accept what anyone says about their own identity, without any critical analysis, without any feminist analysis even. We’re supposed to ignore that sex-based oppression exists and just admit, ‘Oh yes, we are what we say we are and that defines our reality.’”
“But I think for any feminist, any real feminist, we know that that just simply isn’t true,” she added.
“Our sex does define certain aspects of our reality, and people are not allowed to say that in today’s day and age.”
Many women who hold this view refer to themselves as radical feminists, trans-exclusionary radical feminists or gender critical feminists, or even “canceled women.”
“Cancel culture” is a relatively new term, used to describe the phenomenon that happens when someone, usually a famous person or one with some kind of platform, experiences a kind of shunning, harassment, or social banishment for doing or saying something with which a lot of people disagree.
Being “canceled” can take many forms: being trolled or doxxed on social media, being banned from Twitter or other platforms, or finding that events featuring the canceled person are quickly, well, canceled.
In January, an event entitled “Evening with Canceled Women” was canceled by the New York Public Library, where the event was to be hosted.
The canceled event was organized by Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF), a group that advocates for the “rights, privacy and safety of women and girls, by which we mean human females,” Kara Dansky, a board member with WoLF, told CNA.
“We were being told over the course of a week that the contract was being processed (for the event), and then the day before the deposit was due, we were told that we could not proceed with the event and we were not given a reason,” Dansky said.
The event would have included the voices of women “who have, in one way or another, been silenced or canceled as a result of their outspoken views on behalf of women and girls,” she added.
For example, the event would have featured Canadian feminist Megan Murphy, an advocate against pornography and prostitution whose insistence that women are female got her banned from Twitter, Dansky said.
It would also have included Posie Parker, a UK feminist known “for her insistence that the word woman means adult human female, which is simply the dictionary definition of the word,” Dansky said. Parker has also been banned from Twitter for her views.
The event also would have featured Linda Bellows, a Briton “who speaks on behalf of lesbian rights. And she has been told that it is transphobic to insist that lesbians are women who are attracted to women,” Dansky said.
These canceled women join a slew of others, with particularly high numbers in the UK, where the 2004 Gender Recognition Act lets adults register their gender as something other than the biological sex with which they were born.
Common ground with the Catholic Church
While trans-exclusionary radical feminist women typically hold many views with which the Catholic Church disagrees, such as approval of abortion and gay marriage, they share common ground in the belief that women are female and men are male – and they are born that way.
“It has been a tremendous plus to have radical feminists speaking out so strongly about the reality of sexual difference and against the new tyranny of gender,” Mary Rice Hasson, the Kate O’Beirne Fellow in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. and director of the Catholic Women’s Forum, told CNA.
“Although we disagree about many things – most significantly about abortion-– we agree on some important truths about women,” she said, such as opposing violence and exploitation against women, as well as “the importance of acknowledging the reality of sexual difference and the dangers of the transgender agenda.”
“Specifically, we agree that sexual difference is real, that males and females are different in significant ways, and that a person’s sex cannot change,” Hasson said.
“The Church’s vision of the human person differs radically from gender ideology,” Hasson noted. “Christian anthropology teaches that the person is a unity of body and soul, that we are created male or female, forever.”
“Gender ideology, in contrast, imagines the person as a bundle of assorted dimensions,” she said, such as gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, and biological sex, none of which “needs to align – the person is self-determining. God is really not in the driver’s seat.”
Fain said she agrees that gender identity, “this idea that we have an internal sense of being male, female or neither, and that this has any effect on our material reality, is nonsense.”
Dansky, whose group’s primary goals are to fight violence against and exploitation of women in rape, sexual and domestic assault, and pornography and prostitution, said that her work is made nearly impossible in the context of broad social disagreement about what makes someone a woman in the first place.
“It’s very difficult to solve all of those problems when we’re not permitted to name the category of women,” she said.
“It’s very interesting to me that when our society talks about domestic violence and rape and sexual assault, and we talk about the rampant rates of these crimes being perpetrated against women and girls, everybody knows what the words ‘women’ and ‘girls’ mean.”
In light of increasing acceptance of transgender ideology, the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education’s issued a document entitled “Male and Female He Created Them” in June 2019, explaining the Church’s teaching on transgender issues and encouraging dialogue with those experiencing gender dysphoria.
The document cited the need to reaffirm “the metaphysical roots of sexual difference” to help refute “attempts to negate the male-female duality of human nature, from which the family is generated.”
Such a negation “erases the vision of human beings as the fruit of an act of creation” and “creates the idea of the human person as a sort of abstraction who ‘chooses for himself what his nature is to be.’”
Theories of gender, whether moderate or radical, agree that “one’s gender ends up being viewed as more important than being of male or female sex,” according to the document, which also reflects on the role of gender theory in education and speaks of a “crisis” in any alliance between the school and the family.
“Although ideologically-driven approaches to the delicate questions around gender proclaim their respect for diversity, they actually run the risk of viewing such differences as static realities and end up leaving them isolated and disconnected from each other,” it said.
The document called for dialogue, and the protection of human and family rights. It also decried unjust discrimination and noted points of unity among people with different perspectives on gender ideology.
“Key allies“
Looking for concrete examples of common ground, Fain told CNA that she thinks that protecting the freedom of speech of those who oppose transgenderism will be one of the most important things that radical feminists and Christians can work together for.
“(W)e need to deal with this freedom of speech issue that’s happening and cancel culture, which is making most people terrified to speak out on the issue,” she said.
Fain noted that when she wrote the controversial article that got her fired, she had anticipated the backlash and had been saving for months to protect herself from the blow. She recognized that most people cannot afford to lose their jobs for speaking up on this issue.
“Most people can’t, and especially women who are already at a financial disadvantage are more likely to be caring for kids,” she said.
“And people are terrified to speak out on this issue because of the serious economic consequences that are happening.”
“And although I have many issues with the right in general, I will say that I think religious freedom and freedom of speech do go hand in hand,” Faid added.
“And so the Church’s work on that is probably relevant here.”
Hasson identified women like Fain as “key allies” in the fight against transgenderism going forward, and said she looks forward to working with them despite differences on other issues.
“Radical feminists have been fearless in speaking the truth about sexual difference – over social media, at universities, and in public hearings. They have refused to be silenced – even after being ridiculed, ‘de-platformed’ at public universities, or having their Twitter accounts shut down,” Hasson said.
“We differ greatly about abortion and our views of men, but I am hopeful that our work together and personal regard for each other will open up some opportunities in the future for discussions about those areas where we disagree. But for now, I’m grateful for their commitment to speak the truth, even at great personal cost.”
This article was originally published on CNA Feb. 10, 2020.
[…]
If I were to comment about Father Martin’s book and Bergoglio’s endorsement I’d be having to march myself off to Confession. Therefore, I’ll refrain.
Should you post a comment I cannot believe it would be anything other than a spiritual work of mercy. Some truths go down hard but who can exist long without the truth?
Pope Francis is not making sense in this area with homosexualism and the other area with James Martin. Truth remains absent. The FS. The misrepresenting of Benedict. The mocking of seminary faggotry. The telling the expelled one to “follow your vocation”. The “legalize homosexual civil union”.
He could have any number of reasons for deliberately positioning those things.
Yet here we are sustained by the Spirit of God contrary to your assertion. This is the Catholic experience, I say, as when a Christian is thrown into a cell without explanation or recourse and endures the effacement in the love of God.
Your conceptions of belief and works are off. Maybe you’re like James Martin, you would just have them for simmering for their own sakes and your penchants’?
https://onepeterfive.com/francis-appoints-homosexualists-to-shape-doctrine/
(I posted this earlier but seems not to be coming through; so I try again, its’ worth it.)
Bergoglio is way, way wrong. Jesus isn’t resigned to sin. He doesn’t accept sin. He doesn’t surrender to sin.
And, because He loves us — infinitely, ecstatically, insanely — Jesus doesn’t abandon us to sin.
Because embracing sin is not “understanding,” or “walking with,” or “acceptance.”
Accepting sin results only and always in death and misery, destruction and despair.
And, trust me, I know what I’m talking about, being a sinner from way back.
yawn
The article: “Pope Francis said Jesus’ raising from the dead of his friend Lazarus, which is recounted in the Gospel of John, shows that “Jesus isn’t scared of coming close to sinners — to any sinner, even the most brazen and undaunted.”
It is risky to comment on something I have not read. I base my words on what is said in the article.
The words of the Pope “Jesus isn’t scared of coming close to sinners” registered with me as being out of a place. The word “scared” is the key here as somewhat inappropriate in this contact, if accessed by a heart. It makes Our Lord small. Also, the very Incarnation was dropping into the thicket of human sinfulness permeated with the evil which caused Christ constant suffering. If He was not “afraid” of that – He was eager to save us then He cannot be “afraid” of the proximity of sinners.
But well, supposedly the obvious fact that Christ did not see beneath Himself to deal sinners has to be stated. Would it not be appropriate then to pick up an example of yet unreformed sinners which are abundant in the Gospels like woman caught in adultery or tax collectors or others? In fact, Our Lord went around sinners (including Pharisees) non-stop!
However, Lazarus is not an unreformed sinner. First, he was a disciple who later was to become the Bishop of the Church in Cyprus, according to Church tradition. We do not know whether Lasarus was a thick sinner before meeting Jesus or not. It is quite clear though that he and his sisters were disciples of Jesus and that Jesus used to stay in their house quite often; unlike a mere dining with sinners, it was a place of respite for Him. How Martha and Mary relate to Jesus also shows the depth of their discipleship. Them and Lasarus were definitely not dead because of sins. And so, Lasarus’s death and resurrection is a very poor illustration of “sins which make us dead”. Noteworthy, just like in “Jesus was not afraid” Our Lord was made somewhat small Lazarus also was made small here, for the need of an analogy. This is an important and prominent feature of homilies given for the sake of “a current agenda” which subtly twists the Church’s teaching. To match the agenda, a speaker has to reduce or twist the character from the Scriptures he uses to back his point.
Second and very important, a poor empathy/understanding of human relationship/attachment is evident here. Gospels state that Our Lord loved Lasarus’s family dearly. When one loves someone, he is not “afraid” to approach him or his body after death. I am speaking here about a totally human reasoning which seems to be missing in the Pope’s and Fr Martin’s discourse. Speaking superhumanly, Our Lord went to resurrect Lasarus because he wanted to reveal to his disciples the power of God and strengthen them before His Passion. By definition, He could not be “scared” of his friend’s dead body because He loved him or of any body because He is the Creator of those bodies, God and Man together in one Person. Being Life Himself, He would be naturally repelled by death but not “afraid”.
And so, both dead in body Lazarus and Jesus Who came to resurrect him for the same of showing the glory of the Kingdom appear to be a very bad paradigm for “spiritual death of sin which the Lord is not afraid of” the Pope was talking about. In fact, the story of the resurrection of Lazarus is the exact opposite of that. Lazarus is alive in spirit because of his discipleship and he is dead in body. An unrepentant sinner is dead in spirit and alive in body, just like the pharisees were. Pharisees then would be a far better example – and it is very evident that Our Lord could hardly be around them because not only they were dead, they were proud of their own deadness = unrepentance (very narcissistic), just like many of those in the modern world who reject Christ and His Words.
It appears that an analogy “Lasarus – dead in sin” was caused not by contemplation of the Scriptures but by the need to back the agenda “You, faithful, must go to sinners (modern pharisees) and be with them as if they were not sinning, just like Our Lord went to dead Lazarus in the tomb”. I repeat, the problem is that Our Lord, the Truth and the Life, made Lasarus’ spirit permanently alive first when He met him via manifesting to him the Truth and then resurrected his body later. If we are to follow Our Lord here, we are to try to make sinners (modern Pharisees) alive via preaching/manifesting the truth to them – i.e. doing the exact opposite of what the Pope wants.
Hence, I think it would be far better for Fr Martin and the Pope to draw on Our Lords’ dealing with Pharisees who refused to acknowledge the Truth when they beheld Him.
Sin is not love. Sin is death.
And I don’t think love is enabling friends to live in sin and confusion. What sort of friend does that?
Yes, “none are deprived of the possibility of feeling the loving embrace of his Father…” But, on the one hand and on Calvary Christ promised paradise to one robber (actually an insurrectionist), but not to the other. So, why is that?…
Well, clearly, Jesus Christ hadn’t read the new book (all genuflect, a book!) by guru James Martin! Problem solved!
Anna above – Thanks for your patient analysis of what is wrong with Pope Francis’ reading of the story of Lazarus.
Even when we reek of death after three days, that is the death of sin as made clear by Fr Martin and Pope Francis that is proffered as analogous to Lazarus being raised from the grave by Christ, a miracle to demonstrate his divinity. What the drift of the book says, as analyzed by Francis, is the suggestion that whatever our sins [our door to reconciliation locked with a double bolt] Christ will save us.
That then is what dead Lazarus encourages us to believe, that whatever the sin, even an unrepentant death will not prevent Christ from absolving us. This is consistent in context of a favorite Francis religious homoerotic artifact, a naked Christ carrying a naked Judas over his shoulder. There aren’t many, perhaps any clergy who accommodate homosexuality who hold belief in Christ’s judgment and the prospect of eternal punishment [that’s usually consistent with condoning, or remaining silent on contraception and abortion]. It would be wonderful if we could rest assured that we’ll all be saved. Reality, what’s revealed by Christ and conveyed by the Apostles assures us that’s a false hope.
As a postscript to my initial comment, “false hope” regards salvation for all has varied perspectives, one being that we may hope that all from this given point all will be saved. Some say that’s what von Balthasar, Bishop Barron, including my own perspective on the theological virtue of hope. Then there’s the looming questing of the dead prior to that given point in time. Here the Church in its wisdom offers no judgment, although as many point the words of Christ regarding Judas ‘better he had not been born’. Then there’s the possibility, for some at least, that prayer and intercession after the fact [of death] may possess real value regarding judgment, that based on the timeless dimension in which God is, who is pure act, a reality beyond our complete comprehension.
Is Pope Francis referring to a form of judgment beyond the limits of time? Or is he saying that whatever our sins, God’s mercy is greater than ourselves? Judgment requires an either or decision to be definitive as judgment. We do know that Angels were condemned and remain so. Fr Martin’s book, insofar as its commentary by Francis does not deny that judgment can be favorably affected by post death intercession – after all Judas Maccabeus ordered his troops pray for the fallen, all of whom wore condemnable talismans. However neither Martin nor Francis speak of intercessory prayer. They paint a picture of a dead Lazarus as one who died in his sins, reeking of the stench of sin that doesn’t prevent an all merciful God from forgiveness. This is the anomaly that would interpret the crucifixion as a universal act of salvation regardless of whether we repent of our sins. A prescription to do as we wish, the justice due to the effect of sin removed.
First it’s several private meetings at the Vatican, then public endorsement of his book. What’s Francis’ end game with Martin here? Is the pope preparing the way for promoting this homosexualist priest to a higher office in the church? What’s the agenda here?
Who would read anything from either of these gents…
Jesuits are doing themselves in…poor things need pity (& prayer)
That there is something of Christian value in a homosexual “relationship” so long as it is acknowledged “it is not marriage”, is a spurious non-correlation on more than one level.
First it remains homosexual, it does not derive a “relationship” of Christian or natural merit.
Second, it does not address the a priori issues or precedent problems, that apart from the question of marriage and irrespective of such a question, the homosexualism is abhorrent both in itself and to society in general. Which is where the real matter lies.
The “resolving of the question of marriage” is a total irrelevance, not just “non-resolving”; yet that also sets up serious prejudice against true teaching and method (pedagogy) while impugning the sincerity of the protagonist.
And it doesn’t matter who does the acknowledging of the non-marriage aspect of the “relationship” or of the “relationship”.
Philosophy is taught in seminary to help the priesthood guard itself. It isn’t taught because it is “something Catholic and traditional how to remain in a lag” and “to restrain acting on difficulties by holding them inside complexity”.
Some of what we are hearing about being accommodating of everyone, can come under the heading “Rogerian”. See in the WIKIPEDIA link. Whatever the merits might be in Rogerianism, many things can conform to Christian charity but Christian charity is not limited by them nor is it defined and determined by them.
“Even the non-believers can be Rogerian” -it doesn’t just so equate with Christianity or find an equivalence.
The priest is called to let homosexuals know they must separate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogerian_argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause
Life and eternal life are precious gifts. Lazarus is an inspiration to the living and to the dead.