This is the same argument that you first raised in the previous post. Please take a look there. In a nut shell, there is no claim as you seem to suggest there is, that there is a radical discontinuity between the sexes. Men and women both have all that is required to be human. Human masculinity means to have some of these human qualities as primary qualities and some as secondary qualities. Human femininity means to have the complement of these.

Thus your comments such as:

A purely feminine woman would be receptive, passive. Completely passive. …A purely masculine man could only initiate. He cannot be receptive, he cannot yield, ever. He could never be passive and listen to another point of view.

For some reason do not take into consideration the following statements in the post:

“The woman appears more passive, although in a different way she is more active.”

“John Paul II refers to the relationship among femininity, receptivity and love in a text I quoted earlier: ‘The Bride is loved: it is she who receives love, in order to love in return.’”

“WojtyÅ‚a makes a significant point that both the man and woman are complementarily active, but in different modes such that one’s activeness complements the other. Their roles and responsibilities must differ or they would naturally conflict.”

“The very structure of the male psyche and personality is such that it is more readily ‘compelled’ to disclose and objectivize the hidden significance of love for a person of the other sex. This goes with the relatively more active role of the male in such love, and also imposes a responsibility on him.”

It is not a matter of either having the properties or not having them. Rather, it is a matter of possessing them in the proper hierarchy such that two persons can fulfill each other in a complementary and reciprocal fashion.

Karol Wojtyła, in his book Love and Responsibility, notes that looking at sex from an external, scientific perspective one can see that each sex obviously has features the other does not. The anatomical features themselves suggest a mutual complementarity.

The also each have features that are the same. Women may have larger breasts than men, but they still both have breasts.

The body which expresses femininity [“through” masculinity and vice versa masculinity “through” femininity,] manifests the reciprocity and communion of persons.

Exactly how does this happen? If, as is claimed, men and women are so completely different, then how do they communicate in the first place? How do they understand each other? What is the material and construction of the bridge they cross to one another?

he associates the feminine primacy in the receptivity of love with what he calls “a special kind of ‘prophetism’ that belongs to women in their femininity.” An analogous statement can be made about men. In other words, masculine primacy in an initiating love also marks his relationships with everyone else as his masculinity is rooted in the depths of his being.

This is a representation of the general principles involved, but it does not accurately describe men and women and their relations. A woman’s personality is not based just on her femininity, it is also based on her masculinity as well. The revers is also true for all men as well. Femininity is also present in the psyche of the man.

Consider what it would be like if that essential element of each of them did not exist. Masculinity and femininity as pure extremes.

A purely feminine woman would be receptive, passive. Completely passive. She would never rise out of bed in the morning and even leave her room, much less go out into the world where she might meet a man. She could not initiate friendships, alliances, relationship with other people.She could not communicate or do anything would change her world. But she must, at some point, initiate as a man does. If she did not possess this masculine quality, she would be unable to be fully functioning human being. A woman that is only feminine is a bowl of completely self-absorbed jello, not a person.

A purely masculine man could only initiate. He cannot be receptive, he cannot yield, ever. He could never be passive and listen to another point of view. He would never have the capacity to sacrifice his ego enough in order to cooperate with another human being. And how would such a pure alpha male exist in a world where only such other men existed? Could he coexist peacefully? Or would he compete, battle to the death with others because he cannot ever yield to them? Is such a man capable of tenderness, compassion, “self-giving”? No. Those are not male qualities, as you have defined them. Where do they come from? His feminine side.

I do not argue against the Christian idea of complementarity. The two made one-flesh. But you do seem to purposely make it out to be simpler than it actually is. The bond between men and women is not just the feminine in the woman uniting with the masculinity in the man. It’s also the feminine in the man reaching toward the masculinity in the woman.

It’s why men and woman can unite with each other in the first place, they each recognize something of themselves in each other. Its the bridge between them, the glue that keeps such different principles united as one.

Furthermore, it is the telos, the purpose, of these sex differences which define the sole context for the most intimate communion of persons; namely, fruitful self-giving love. The series will end with the application of these findings to the problem of same-sex attraction.

If men and women truly are as you have described them in such absolutes, there can be no “problem” of same-sex attraction. Because there could be no homosexuals, only heterosexuals. There could never be a “wrong choice” to be homosexual, because in your worldview, the capacity to make such a choice could not exist in the first place.