Sex and the Human Person: Part III - Sex Differences
“…in the image of God, He created him; male and female He created them” (Gen 1:27)
John Paul the Great sees in this passage the unity of human beings in one nature–God created him (singular) in the image of God. But immediately the text shows that there is a binary character to this single human nature, as male and female. In terms of relation, human nature is binary. That is, we also image God as male and female together.
In his apostolic letter Christifideles laici, the John Paul the Great links sex differences to God’s plan for each person which “‘from the beginning’ has been indelibly imprinted in the very being of the human person—men and women—and, therefore, in the make-up, meaning and deepest workings of the individual.†While the full meaning of sex difference is deeply interior in the psychology, emotions, indeed in the entire mystery of the person, it also has empirical manifestations. Therefore, John Paul commends the study of the human person and gender to the human sciences and theological disciplines to find and clarify the specific gifts of femininity and masculinity. However, he warns that the findings of science will be partial and so they cannot change the deepest and immutable realities of the person and his sex which are revealed by God.
Fr. Manfred Hauke in his work, Women in the Priesthood?, shows that masculine and feminine physical characteristics are integrated into almost all aspects of a man’s or woman’s physical constitution, respectively. The primary sexual characteristics of men and women (i.e. the genitalia and other aspects of the reproductive system) are obviously oriented toward facilitating sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction and in the case of a women, gestating and giving birth. It is also visibly obvious that these primary characteristics correspond to a theme of interiority for women and exteriority for men.
Referencing German author Philipp Lersch, Hauke says that looking at the physiology of the act of coitus, the woman has the natural role of receiving and assimilating which Lersch calls a ‘centripetal’ process. In other words, her physiology directs what comes to her from the “outside inward toward the center of life.†The man on the other hand, has a ‘centrifugal’ function in which he directs “from the center of life outward.†This can be viewed from what he calls the primary sex characteristics.
Hauke goes on to show how secondary sex characteristics, such as skeletal structure, musculature, adipose tissue distribution, epidermal texture, etc. are all organically integrated in accord with these primary sex characteristics. Masculine secondary sex characteristics all serve to facilitate the male’s “reaching out into the world and of overcoming and conquering space.†Female sex characteristics converge in a way in which the woman is more strongly directed toward the inside. Hauke finds that there is a psycho-somatic integration of these functions which is not limited to physiology.
Hauke studies body dynamics, psychological development, differences in experiencing the world—including religious experience, and differing world visions. He calls ‘summary forms’, the terms which generally describe the differences between men and women. These are ‘centrality’ for women and ‘eccentricity’ for men. In every aspect of the human person, secondary sex characteristics are present. These characteristics can be described in terms of centrality and eccentricity. However, like JPTG, Balthasar, and Kreeft, Hauke says that these are dominant modes for each sex. Masculinity and femininity have the features of the opposite sex but they function in a secondary manner.
Even brain studies show an early and marked difference between masculine and feminine brain structure. Stephen Rhoads in his book, Taking Sex Differences Seriously, reports:
Brain research also reveals inherent sex differences. For example, neuroscientists have determined that men have fewer neurons connecting the left and right hemispheres of the brain. This difference may help to explain why women are better at talking about their emotions. (The left brain controls the talking; the right brain controls the emotions.) More important than physical differences between the male and female brains are differences in the way the sexes use their brains and in the effect of their brains’ hormones. Positron emission tomography (PET) scans show that women seem to use more neurons for almost every activity tested. The typical woman’s brain seems to be “networked,†the typical man’s compartmentalized. The woman’s way seems to be better for many verbal tasks and for recovery from strokes, the man’s for spatial tasks (pp. 27-28).
Theological anthropology tells us that our sexual identity is given to us as a gift and is immutable, as either male or female. We are created this way, it comes through no choice of our own. The sciences offer confirmation, to the extent they are competent, that this Christian anthropology is sound. While the sex characteristics serve a telos, a purpose, they do it in such a way that the masculine primary and secondary characteristics are eccentric, he initiates and goes outward. Feminine primary and secondary are integrating and interior. In the context of the previous post, you can already see how this will come together. The next time we will look at the way in which men and women are not just different, but different in a unifying manner. We will discuss complementarity.
.jpg)
That is an overly simplistic view of men and women. It does not address that actual reality. They are generalization’s of male-female characteristics. Those things however exist in a continuum from person to person and even from one point of time to another in the same person. And many of those characteristics serve a variety of purposes, not just gender identity.
Does Hauke address the biological fact that elements of both genders, no matter how insignificant, exist in varying degrees in both sexes? That this includes matters of psychological and emotional gender identity?
The writings you have quoted make it sound like Hauke thinks both men and women are two entirely different species. That is ridiculous. There are many characteristics both share. And they have a common human template.
Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 30, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
That is an overly simplistic view of men and women. It does not address that actual reality.
Actually, Patrick, it does reflect reality. Neither is it overly simplistic but you are correct, it is a recognition of what is distinctly masculine and what is distinctly feminine.
There certainly are degrees in which individuals exhibit these characteristics but other than pathological cases, the least masculine male is still distinctly male and the least feminine female is still distinctly female. There is no androgynous class of persons.
Does Hauke address the biological fact that elements of both genders, no matter how insignificant, exist in varying degrees in both sexes?
Men and women both have all that is required to be human. Human masculinity means to have some of these are primary qualities and some as secondary qualities. Femininity means to have the complement of these.
That this includes matters of psychological and emotional gender identity?
Sure, when women have masculine psychological or emotional identities it is called a pathology. The same is true for men having those of women.
The writings you have quoted make it sound like Hauke thinks both men and women are two entirely different species. That is ridiculous.
See above. I suggest you read Hauke’s book. Also try Stephen Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously. Also, try reading part ii of this series for the theological foundation for the ontology of sex differences.
Comment by David — March 30, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
Even Rhoads admits that there is a significant number of women in particular who do not fit the profile- ‘high-testosterone’ women. (I suspect I fall into this category, but my hormone levels have never been tested.)
I’m afraid I couldn’t get through the whole book- I came across that woman he mentions who cheated on her house-husband with guys from work, and I was so furious with her I couldn’t make myself read the rest. She had the kind of man I dream of, and she threw him away because she fell for the macho crap. Idiot.
Comment by Donna Marie Lewis — March 30, 2006 @ 9:18 pm
You are quite incorrect. There are indeed inter-sexed people born every year. They are a “class”. Even though sex reassignment surgery is performed on them, (and has often turned out be incorrect) they are still not quite the same as either wholly one gender or the other.
This means then that every man and every women on the planet has this pathology, since every man and woman does have female and male sections of their identities.
Your statement about what constitutes “pathology” is murky and cannot be supported or proven by any facts that you have provided. It sounds more like a purely personal value judgment, not a reasoned logical conclusion.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 30, 2006 @ 10:32 pm
There are indeed inter-sexed people born every year. They are a “classâ€. Even though sex reassignment surgery is performed on them, (and has often turned out be incorrect) they are still not quite the same as either wholly one gender or the other.
This would be the same as saying that those born with any other deformity would be a separate “class” of human being. That indeed would be a sad state of affairs, this is what the Nazi regime argued. The performance of sex reassignment surgery is an acknowledgement that it is a deformation. In every case, even for those who have an extra chromosome, there is still genetic clarity pointing to the maleness or femaleness of the unfortunate person born with such a deformity.
This means then that every man and every women on the planet has this pathology, since every man and woman does have female and male sections of their identities.
I’m not quite sure of what you mean by “section of identity.” It sounds like you see a personality has being fragmented. The virtue of integrity acknowledges quite the opposite. The person, to be healthy, must be totally integrated in all aspects of his personhood. That men possess secondarily, attributes that are primary for women and vice versa does not fragment the personality but constitute it has being fully human. It is when the secondary feminine starts to become a primary feature of a male that a pathological state arises.
Comment by David — March 31, 2006 @ 8:40 am
Even Rhoads admits that there is a significant number of women in particular who do not fit the profile- ‘high-testosterone’ women.
Donna Marie - yes those exposed to high levels of testosterone prenatally or neo-natally do exhibit more masculine traits but they still are genetically, physiologically, and psycho-emotionally, clearly feminine. The difficulty for some is that they don’t always clearly identify with other girls at a young age because of their masculine traits. This does in some cases lead to confusion of their sexual identity. However, it would be just that, confusion. It is helpful I think to understand if one is a high-testosterone woman as it helps to explain why the difference between the way you and other women, on average, respond to things without having to think that there is something wrong with you.
Comment by David — March 31, 2006 @ 8:55 am
Exactly on what evidence do you base your judgment that this is a “deformity” rather than a normal human variation? You could pretty much describe every aspect of human individuality as a deformity. Why is inter-sex a deformity and having brown hair not?
Even besides those who are born inter-sexed is there not a great deal of variance in genitalia? At what point does having say a very large clitoris become a “deformity”?
Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 31, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
Patrick -
There are several factors that go into a purely medical distinction between a variation from the norm and a deformation. Numbers are part of it but most important is funcationality. Medicine presumes a purpose for human organs and if the purpose is inhibited or interrupted then it is a deformation.
You allude to hermaphroditism I believe (when you say “inter-sexed”). The NIH refers to this as a “rare disease.” It is rare because it affects a very small percentage of the population. It is a disease because reproductive functionality is impaired and most often disrupted. Someone suffering from this disorder is not both male and female but simply have ambiguous genitalia because of a genetic disorder. They are most often infertile. Without medical intervention they certainly cannot procreate. It will never be a normal variation because it cannot reproduce itself.
You also refer to abnormal adrenal hyperplasia (large clitoris). This is caused by a malfunctioning adrenal gland. This disease is often accompanied by fused labia which can appear similar to a scrotum. It also can accompany such symptoms as the inability to process salt and severe illness. It requires medical intervention.
It is reaching to try to redefine sexual pathologies in order to avoid acknowledging that human nature is binary–that is it has only men and women–and their entire structures are oriented toward reproducing and rearing children. However, I suppose that is no different than is being done with the invention of a “gay gender.”
It does no one any good service to ignore their problems in order to try to help them to feel better about themselves. The right thing to do is to help them to recognize there is a problem and to help them find the options available for addressing the problem.
Comment by David — March 31, 2006 @ 3:20 pm