So you’re well aware of the ridiculous divide between some GLBs and some Ts over whether the Ts should be part of the LGBTs? Let’s allow Eve Tushnet, the lesbian celibate Catholic who wants homosexuals to stop offending god with their sexytime, to push that line of thinking to the extreme, by claiming gender reassignment procedures are in line with Jesus’ teachings, but not gay persons showing physical affection for loved ones.
Tushnet is a “controversial” figure because any person who identifies as gay and Catholic, and then runs her mouth about what you should do in your own bed, is bound to wind up described that way.
In a (really great) conversation with blogger and constitutional law professor Ann Althouse, who believes in sex only for copules in love, Tushnet immediately confuses being “intersex” and “transgender” — two very different things, and wow, that’s a doozy to gloss over.
But Tushnet’s argument for permitting sex changes completely circumvents a common argument against gay sex: because it does not further the possibility of procreation, it is sinful. Well, even post-op transgender folks aren’t about to start having children because a surgeon turned a penis into a vagina, so shouldn’t they be barred from intercourse even after changing genitalia? Tushnet explains this away by claiming Catholic views on procreation “overstated.” Uh huh.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
As philosophy teacher religious scholar and Daniel Fincke notes about Tushnet’s stance (in a manner better than I can), it leaves gays who want to have sex only two possibilities, and one involves a scalpel.
Instead of recognizing all of these sorts of real category distinctions which track people’s extremely strong psychological natures, which we have no reason not to medically, socially, and morally accommodate wherever there is no demonstrable harm to anyone to do so, Tushnet’s views of ethics (but thankfully not law, it seems) would give non-transgendered gays only two choices, both of which run fundamentally contrary to their allegedly “God-given” natures: celibacy or sex reassignment. This means that Tushnet thinks God created homosexual natures for people just to have them live either in perpetual frustration and sublimation of them on the one hand, or, on the other hand, to be morally forced into surgeries to change their sex to be opposite of the genders He also supposedly gave them, if they ever want to fulfill that sexual nature He gave them in a morally and religiously acceptable way. This is symptomatic of the kind of anti-natural way that traditional Roman Catholics approach what they ironically call “natural law philosophy”.
The case of Eve Tushnet’s particular bizarre and reality-refusing conclusions is illustrative of the problematic way in which Roman Catholic traditionalists approach philosophy. Putatively they are trying to make arguments which are not merely religious but which are grounded in the sorts of conceptual, scientific, and ethical evidence and logic that could persuade any open, rational human mind. They insist that they are not merely dogmatically referring to the Bible or Catholic tradition when developing a natural law argument but, rather, making a philosophical and universally valid argument, rooted in universally discoverable and defensible natural laws which even the most hardened atheist should be able to understand.
While I fully believe Tushnet’s argument is ruefully stank with contradictions, I did enjoy this little web video debate, and would like to see more of them.
Evan
No need to specify “non-transgendered” here – trans gays aren’t any better off than non-trans gays under this interpretation of Catholicism. It’s just that in the eyes of the bigots, we (as usual) don’t exist. Transsexuality is just an extreme form of Teh Gay(TM) in their minds.
Qjersey
Sadly her views are exactly the same as in Iran. There was a documentary out a few years back about it. Gay is against Islam, so the government was forcing gay men to have sex changes to become women.
Lanjier
I think the Catholic faith is an unhealthy lifestyle for a gay or lesbian person and recommend a faith re-assignment procedure.
Mercedes Allen
Don’t worry: if this gleans enough notice, the Pope, priesthood any rest of the Catholic institution will correct her of any lenience on trans people.
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
This bizzare hate spewing vile creature is truly ugly inside and outside……
gilber
the day homosexuals are able to prove rationally and realistically the difference between heterophila and homophilia and their different sub-units,and their relation with emissions and absorptivity(of the brain or spinal cord),they are going to be able to prove the existence of lineal homosexuality and reversed homosexuality and show that heterosexuality has no physical existence, only lesbianism and sodomy, as the two dichotomous sexualities characteristic of two distinct morphological sexual groups.it’s gonna show how nature is able to create variations from two single specific forms of sexuality emitted by two distinct structures.proving that this mechanism are taking place under any condition(universal) and that sexual dimorphism and asymmetric sexual insemination is the cause of sexual deviancy and inversion will clarify many things.the schemes of the social version must be proven wrong by using a realistic model based on the consequences of binding,absorption ,emission, excitation,and information transfer.the social version is powerful because it destroys awareness of natural psycho-physical pathways that a mind experience according to some physical conditions such us asymmetric /symmetric couplings.it is very important to be prepared when dealing with heterosexual theology arguing that only two homologous pair are natural and universal under any condition,change or transformation,male-female pairs(or dimorphic male-male bonds) are an amplification of disparity ,disbalance and incoherence with the potential of reaching a toxic maximum level of delusion and aberrations given a change in their physiological and morphological conditions,and must be linearized or have symmetrization with the psycho-physical properties of the homologous pair,thus the biblical statement that husband and wife becomes the same flesh,who are the ones who can realistically have the same flesh? aren’t they the isomorphic couples.this goes to prove how important the psycho-physical conditions of the homologous pairs are to the inverted ones.they want,natural belonging,in despite of their sexual dimorphism,they want unity,sameness,non sexual deviancy/inversion etc.if homosexuals proof that these conditions are physically and mentally ours by default,and that society created the social version to twist and make us social sexual deviants(according to the physical version) while the actual physical sexual deviants are wrongly regarded as non sexual deviants,then we can proof that two completely different schemes are playing at the same time,and they must be resolved and exposed.but the most important is to destroy the social version scheme and follow the physical one. its jargon will be destroy as well, for instance a male do not tell a woman that he will make her feel like a woman(social scheme) if she socks his cock,instead, that he will make her feel like a sodomite and will “masculinize” her(physical scheme).the model constructed must proof that this is the actual physical truth happening.the model could be constructed by putting two isomorphic couple inside two separated rooms,this is the initial condition,,then increase the sexual dimorphism index while keeping one pair always isomorphic in very variation.while the other pair increases asymmetry continuously.the possible questions are which of the two pairs are physically undergoing sexual deviancy/inversion,which pair has a natural belonging and which one a artificial one.how much asymmetry can the mind withstand.what is the limit of non sexual deviancy.and many other questions may be made about he properties of each coupling.variations are made because it represents a magnification or amplification in order to resolve each pair’s physical and mental states apart.
missanthrope
This woman is a delusional, self-hating queer, who cares what she says? And Althouse isn’t the sharpest tools in the shed either, seriously she is one of the disappointingly shallow academics on bloggingheads.tv
Officially a couple of bishops in the last 50 years have said the being trans is okay and according to a friend of mine, it is in my local diocese. But according the official church teaching we’re apart of the conspiracy “against the family” and will destroy humanity just like queer people.
Syl
@ Evan: Exactly. Nail on the head!
The big issue here is why Queerty is giving voice to this pathetic troll. Just because someone is queer and has internet access doesn’t mean that their opinions are of any worth!
Captain Conundrum
I respect Ms. Tushnet for her principles. Regardless of the accuracy of her beliefs, she believes that homosexuality is wrong, and she doesn’t force herself to be straight, but instead believes that her religion forbids her a sex life. So, she has become celibate rather than go against the religion that has apparently made her much happier than any kind of sex life could.
However, I must disagree with her about the picking and choosing that allows her to accept transsexuals having sex but not homosexuals. The Catholic Church is very clear: Sex is for procreation and nothing else. (Of course, most people aren’t listening to that–Spain and Italy are Catholic countries, and they have the lowest birth rates in the world.) If you only follow some of the Church’s rules, what’s the point of being part of the religion?
In Iran, thanks to a ruling by Ayatollah Khomeini, transsexuals are accepted, but homosexuals are still not. So 80% of the sex reassignment surgery patients are gay men who want to avoid capital punishment.
The Unrepentant Iconoclast
Captain Conumdrum, are you an idiot or are your comments satirical? If sex is for pro-creation and nothing else, then STRAIGHT INFERTILE PEOPLE CANNOT MARRY. Post-menopausal women must divorce their husbands. Vasectomy must be outlawed because it prevents a man from sprinkling his seeds. If marriage is for pro-creation ONLY, then married women must every nine months give birth. Oh I forgot, celibacy must be condemned too because God had decreed: “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:28)
I speculate that Eve “Douche”net thinks that trans can still have sex because they can now use their genitalia in a “pluck-and-socket” manner. As to gays, lesbians, and bis; penetration must be perfect on other “sockets” than the “vagina.” According to “natural lawyers,” mouth and arse-hole are NOT designed for penile penetration.
If you say straight infertile people can still marry DESPITE their incapability of pro-creating, then can homosexuals and trans-sexuals.
PS: I am born a straight male. Due to my lack of physical strength when a young lad and poor performance in PE courses, I had been very much ridiculed by my class-mates, who hurled at me such homophobic insults as “wimp” or “wuss.” That’s why I, myself a victim of homophobic abuses, sympathized with homosexuals. Nevertheless, I am proud of my heterosexuality.
Captain Conundrum
@The Unrepentant Iconoclast: I wasn’t talking about what I thought. I was talking about what the Catholic Church thinks. If they’re OK with straight infertile couples marrying (I don’t think they are, but I’d have to check on that one), then that’s their insanity.
As for the whole “Be fruitful and multiply” thing, we have 7 billion people. I think we’ve already been quite fruitful. And if the Catholic Church condemned celibacy, then monks and nuns would not have taken vows of celibacy. (In fact, it’s strange that people are arguing about gay priests when gay men used to simply become priests or monks rather than marry women.)
I have no respect for so-called “religious” people who only follow the rules that are convenient for them. I don’t care what the rules are, just follow them! Sometimes believing in one’s principles involves great personal sacrifice.
BTW “wimp” and “wuss” are hardly homophobic.