- Status
S
St_Francis
Guest
I totally agree
M
Miss_Felicity
Guest
My gender is female
My gender expression is woman(femme)
My sexual Identification is Heterosexual
My gender expression is woman(femme)
My sexual Identification is Heterosexual
R
Rau
Guest
Some of these terms, like the 3rd above, rely somewhat on science/psychology du jour. Some definitions below.
**The CCC is using the term “sexual identity”. I would be interested to know the definition of this term that others believe is used by the CCC??? **
Definition of Terms: Sex, Gender, Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation
Excerpt from: The Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients, adopted by the APA Council of Representatives, February 18-20, 2011. The Guidelines are available on the APA website at apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/guidelines.aspx
Definition of Terms
**Sex **refers to a person’s biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex (i.e., atypical combinations of features that usually distinguish male from female). There are a number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia.
**Gender **refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations is referred to as gender-normative; behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations constitute gender non-conformity.
Gender identity refers to “one’s sense of oneself as male, female, or transgender” (American Psychological Association, 2006). When one’s gender identity and biological sex are not congruent, the individual may identify as transsexual or as another transgender category (cf. Gainor, 2000).
**Gender expression **refers to the “…way in which a person acts to communicate gender within a given culture; for example, in terms of clothing, communication patterns and interests. A person’s gender expression may or may not be consistent with socially prescribed gender roles, and may or may not reflect his or her gender identity” (American Psychological Association, 2008, p. 28).
Sexual orientation refers to the sex of those to whom one is sexually and romantically attracted. Categories of sexual orientation typically have included attraction to members of one’s own sex (gay men or lesbians), attraction to members of the other sex (heterosexuals), and attraction to members of both sexes (bisexuals). While these categories continue to be widely used, research has suggested that sexual orientation does not always appear in such definable categories and instead occurs on a continuum (e.g., Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953; Klein, 1993; Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolff, 1985; Shiveley & DeCecco, 1977) In addition, some research indicates that sexual orientation is fluid for some people; this may be especially true for women (e.g., Diamond, 2007; Golden, 1987; Peplau & Garnets, 2000).
J
JustPink
Guest
I won’t disagree with that. I just think the message the CCC is trying to get across is a little deeper than simply talking about gender in isolation.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
The Church realizes that “just our gender” encompasses a lot more than many people of modern sensibility realize.Lol, no one is saying that this is what the CCC is referring to specifically.
But like I said, when sexuality is referred to here, I really don’t think they’re talking only about a person’s gender, as some seem to suggest. I think their use of the term “sexuality” encompasses more about our sexuality than just our gender.
R
Rau
Guest
EasterJoy, please share your insight, as I think many of us struggle in this area.
M
Miss_Felicity
Guest
Okay I am willing to use this model, there has been some nuanced debate in the gender and sexuality education circles but I can agree to these terms (in the context of the question)
Even with me rephrasing my sex as female, doesn’t change that my gender EXPRESSION is femme; low to middle femme to be more exact on the spectrum. and my sexual identity is heterosexual although I don’t consider myself a kinsey 0 (but that is a whole other slightly unrelated debate).
My question is are you sure that the CCC is using APA guide of terms?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
If you don’t mind me contributing… I’m passionate about Bl. JPIIs teachings on the nuptial meaning of the body. He guides us to see ourselves as being made to seek God through the relationship between man and woman, male and female. Most obviously, this is demonstrated in the marriage between a man and woman, but marriage and family is a predominant theme in the celebate religious tradition also. The ‘brides’ of Christ, ‘brothers’, ‘sisters’, ‘mother’, ‘father’ are all spiritual roles with the same end. Single people developing affective maturity, also contribute maternally and paternally to humankind within their single, celebate, lay state.
J
JustPink
Guest
Well, you are correct that it does… that’s exactly why instead of saying it’s only talking about our gender, it is far more correct to say it is talking about our full sexuality… because “our genders” aren’t just “our genders” in the practical sense that everyone would understand it, so it is crucial to explain that it means far beyond just having XX or XY.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Wow, you said so succintly and clearly what i was trying to say in such a wordy and muddy way
G
GEddie
Guest
I believe most of us are really on the same page, then, although the OQ as originally worded left some ambiguity.
Sexual identity is a matter basic to our genes and bodies, and as such affects nearly all parts of our bodies: The body build, muscular strength, voice, even the senses and mind; as well as the nuances of our psychology.
The original question’s phrasing threw me. Sexual identity being part of our bodies, it is not something we should need to “figure out.” We should know it from earliest childhood. It is somatically human; not a social construct as we are told today.
ICXC NIKA
Sexual identity is a matter basic to our genes and bodies, and as such affects nearly all parts of our bodies: The body build, muscular strength, voice, even the senses and mind; as well as the nuances of our psychology.
The original question’s phrasing threw me. Sexual identity being part of our bodies, it is not something we should need to “figure out.” We should know it from earliest childhood. It is somatically human; not a social construct as we are told today.
ICXC NIKA
E
EasterJoy
Guest
The old sensibility sometimes put artificial boundaries on the complementary gifts of each gender. The new sensibility over-corrects for that, and in the process pretends that real differences between the genders (but also between members of a gender) are better ignored. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
To illustrate what I mean (and forgive me for where the analogy will be inadequate–this is unavoidable), I would put it this way, using St. Paul’s explanation of the spiritual gifts as a parallel: “As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ.” 1 Cor. 12:12
In the old sensibility, there was a temptation to say, as Paul warned against: that is, the eye saying to the hand, “I do not need you,” or the head to the feet, “I do not need you.” Further, it was thought that because it was easiest for a hand to close a door, that an elbow could not do it and, in some quarters, that an elbow ought not do it.
In the new sensibility, the temptation is in the extreme other direction: “I am eye and ear and hand and feet and especially head all unto myself, I am whole unto myself, and my goal in life is to accept and recognize and rejoice in my autonomous wholeness, and to seek out other autonomous whole people, that we may associate together or not, at our pleasure, like the gods.” That is the extreme end of the thinking, but it is more pervasive than moderns like to recognize or admit. Everyone is going around secretly frantic that they haven’t found a way to interact with others in a state of blissfully autonomous wholeness, not realizing that it is a fool’s errand in the first place. Just as a single ant is, in the biological sense, as good as dead, just so none of us can fully consider ourselves alive until we find our complementary place in the Body–and make no mistake, every human being is, in the end, meant to have his or her place in the Body of Christ to the glory of God, whether they do so in a greater or lesser degree of knowing.
What the Church is talking about with regards to gender is simply one piece, albeit a far greater piece than some like to think, in the Christian work of finding our place in the Body of Christ, a place that we do not determine by what we want, but which we find by realizing what we are. We are talking about far more than “I am a woman, therefore I cannot be ordained” or “I am a man, therefore I cannot bear children” or some other form of realizing our boundaries. In the end, it is about realizing that the organs differentiate from fetal tissue into specialized tissues not so that each can do less, but so that each can do more. That is my take on it.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
I don’t know what that means. 
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I mean the wrong-headed prejudice used to be that only men could do all things associated with male gender roles and only women could do those things only pertaining to women and never the 'twain shall meet–which was absurd even then–while now the pendulum has swung to the point that even some Catholics theoretically believe that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. Today’s absurdity is that there are really some people who truly believe that the only unique aspect between men and women is which part of the needed plumbing one contributes to procreation, and that even that is a regrettable throw-back from 2 million years ago that “modern medicine” might do well to circumvent, if it can figure out how to do it.I don’t know what that means.
Men and women complement each other, which necessarily means that no single one of us is the be-all and end-all human being, and that is not regrettable. That is something over which to rejoice, for we are fearfully and wonderfully made.
J
JustPink
Guest
In the future, it’s going to be politically incorrect to refer to someone as female or male without first asking them what they “identify themselves” as.I mean the wrong-headed prejudice used to be that only men could do all things associated with male gender roles and only women could do those things only pertaining to women and never the 'twain shall meet–which was absurd even then–while now the pendulum has swung to the point that even some Catholics theoretically believe that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. Today’s absurdity is that there are really some people who truly believe that the only unique aspect between men and women is which part of the needed plumbing one contributes to procreation, and that even that is a regrettable throw-back from 2 million years ago that “modern medicine” might do well to circumvent, if it can figure out how to do it.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Let us hope this insanity corrects itself before it comes to that.
J
JustPink
Guest
I guarantee there’s already plenty of people out there who think that’s how it should be.Let us hope this insanity corrects itself before it comes to that.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Even out of 8 million people in the City of New York, not that many. Out of the 7 billion people in the world, extremely few. They tend to be loud about it, though.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Thank you. That’s a help. But I also meant I don’t know what it means to know my sexual identity.I mean the wrong-headed prejudice used to be that only men could do all things associated with male gender roles and only women could do those things only pertaining to women and never the 'twain shall meet–which was absurd even then–while now the pendulum has swung to the point that even some Catholics theoretically believe that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. Today’s absurdity is that there are really some people who truly believe that the only unique aspect between men and women is which part of the needed plumbing one contributes to procreation, and that even that is a regrettable throw-back from 2 million years ago that “modern medicine” might do well to circumvent, if it can figure out how to do it.
Men and women complement each other, which necessarily means that no single one of us is the be-all and end-all human being, and that is not regrettable. That is something over which to rejoice, for we are fearfully and wonderfully made.
I know I’m a man. I know I like women. I like most manly things and dislike most womanly things, but I don’t like all manly things and do like some womanly things.
I’ve never been hunting, and I do like to bake once in a while. I don’t leave dirty socks laying around, but I do think “Dumb & Dumber” is a funny movie.
- Status