Deconstructing Gender: Moving Towards Justice and Equity - Day 1
Editor's Note: The following article is a reproduction of one of the keynote speeches delivered during the Summer Conference in San Juan, Puerto Rico. It has been lightly edited for ease of reading.
One of the most important, controversial, and heated discussions currently taking place within religious, political, and social circles is the discussion about gender. Gender and its multiple expressions elicit volatile feelings and emotions among those who debate its possible applications and understandings. In my presentation this morning, I intend to accomplish several things. Firstly, my presentation aims to offer some ways of viewing gender from a historical framework that helps us understand some of its multiple representations. My purpose in this first part is to decentralize the idea that gender exists exclusively within the framework of biology and that there are unique ways of existing as human beings. In the second part of my presentation, I argue that understanding gender in its diverse experiences and possible expressions allows us to build more just and equitable theological and ecclesial spaces of peace and solidarity. Finally, I conclude with an invitation to adopt tools that help us climb the mountains of discrimination and oppression.
A misconception, in my view, quite common and frequent, arises when gender discussions are portrayed as recent topics, often tracing their theoretical framework from the works of Judith Butler, Michel Foucault, Simone de Beauvoir, and Eve Kosofsky,[1] among others. While it is true that their works are often cited as the most prominent in this field, it is also true that discussions about gender have existed since the beginnings of various human civilizations. Recent research, especially from the perspective of decolonial feminisms,[2] has shed light on how indigenous and pre-Columbian civilizations around the world were already discussing and understanding gender from diverse reference frameworks that encompassed much more than biology/anatomy. In other words, as research advances, we are discovering that gender has never existed in a stabilized or definitive manner; instead, each civilization has understood it in relation to its socio-cultural conceptions and philosophies of life. It is important, therefore, at this juncture, it is important to understand that there is a fundamental distinction between gender and biology and to avoid using both categories interchangeably, where one category seeks to define and condition the other.
The Nigerian researcher Oyèrónkẹ́. Oyěwùmí offers a relevant distinction between gender and biology/anatomy. Oyěwùmí explains that in the Yoruba African civilizations, the gender categories of "man-woman" did not exist defined within the gender framework that we know today. In other words, according to Oyěwùmí, in Yoruba civilizations, there were observed biological/anatomical differences among different people's bodies, but; however, these anatomical distinctions did not necessarily correspond to any kind of socially constructed gender role or identity. In other words, biology did not dictate the social categories of gender roles or identities; thus, a person with a penis or a vagina was not confined to any specific social parameter nor subject to a socio-cultural expectation of behavior, profession, conduct, labor, etc. This does not mean that Yoruba communities did not "convey information about male and female anatomical differences. But these anatomical differences were not encoded because they did not carry much social significance and therefore were not projected into the social sphere."[3] In other words, reproductive systems and biology provide important anatomical distinctions among bodies; however, these anatomical distinctions do not function and should not be used as agents of control that define the gender identities, expressions, or roles of the individuals who inhabit those bodies.
Understand, then, that having a penis or a vagina does not define a person's gender because throughout history, there has never been an exclusive or correct way of existing with a penis or a vagina, nor of being a "man" or a "woman."[4] Therefore, it is important to understand that gender, as a category of analysis that explores behaviors, identities, and expressions— – among others— that is– conditioned and culturally constructed, does not correspond to a specific anatomy, nor is it defined by bodies and their reproductive systems. In other words, gender is not defined by biology/anatomy, nor does gender negate or reject biology/anatomy.
Recent research suggests that gender is fluid or in constant motion. Judith Butler has made a profound contribution to this by claiming, that "[G]ender is a complexity that is perpetually deferred, never fully appears at any given juncture in time. Thus, an open coalition creates identities that are alternately established and abandoned depending on the goals of the moment; it will be an open set that allows multiple coincidences and discrepancies without obedience to a normative telos of closed definition."[5]
What Butler seems to suggest is that gender never exists as something finalized or finished, but as a constant reshaping of behaviors, expressions, and functions that adapt to the socio-cultural space that the individual occupies. Therefore, gender always exists in constant motion, reformulating in different and new ways depending on the space, time, and place it occupies.
With this, I intend to suggest two things. Firstly, that it is impossible to claim a single and exclusive way of existing as a "man," "woman," or any of the other categories with which society identifies us or we identify ourselves.[6] And secondly, that the concepts of "man" and "woman" that have historically been defined based on biological understandings are incapable of containing the boundless and multiple ways in which people identify, understand, and express themselves from their bodies. Up to this point, I have briefly explained some specificities of gender, detaching it from biology, because I believe that understanding these elements allows us to engage in deeper and more equitable conversations within our faith communities, leading us to spaces of peace and solidarity.
From a theological-ecclesial perspective, it is important to understand that gender does not exist as something definitively defined, because, for me, this speaks of a God capable of transcending human thought and limitation. In other words, understanding that gender continues to be in constant motion, constantly reformulating within each individual, speaks to me of a God who walks alongside each person in their processes of growth and self-discovery. Similarly, a fluid understanding of gender decentralizes ideas of a God and a theology that are sexist, misogynistic, and dominant, which seeks to establish exclusive and oppressive ways of existing within our bodies, sexualities, and unfinished identities.
One of the most important contributions to theology and its relationship with gender and sexuality is made by the Argentine theologian Marcella Althaus-Reid, who wrote the significant text "Indecent Theology: Perverted Theological Perspectives on Sex, Gender, and Politics."[7] Marcella argued that liberation theology— – a theological movement largely initiated by Latin American men seeking to rescue the experience of impoverished people as a space for doing theology— – needed to consider sex and gender as fundamental elements of the human condition and thus speak of a “God who does not abandon us when we practice sex.”[8] Marcella explained that the church needed to begin talking about sexuality and gender outside of dominant biological ideas that establish the categories of "man" and "woman" as unquestionable, forcing a heterosexual-patriarchal idea that dictates how people should exist and manifest themselves in their bodies. Faced with this important issue, Althaus-Reid asked:
How can we make a sexual theology that is also a popular theology of love? How can we use the stories of our loves to reread the Scriptures, rethink how we organize ourselves as a church, and reflect on topics like Grace, Christology, the Trinity, and Redemption from the experiences of love that the church and theology have suppressed and silenced for centuries? How can we think of Grace without declaring love illegal? Indecent theology is not a theology that seeks equality like liberal feminist theology, but to recognize differences and make difference and divergence an integral part of our theological praxis. It is not an inclusive proposal in the sense that it does not seek to include people and ideas into an existing church structure and way of doing theology, but to open alternative spaces for reflection... For that, we need to hear stories. Stories of struggle and solidarity, but also sexual stories. The church has never listened to people's sexual stories, and that's why theology knows so little about love. How can we talk about Grace (the free love of God) if we do not understand what lies behind the lives and loves of so many people?[9]
As Althaus-Reid mentions, it is important to question the idea of inclusivity, which is often mentioned in gender discussions within theology and the church. It is important to note Althaus-Reid's specific comment that recognizes that "inclusion" carries within it an idea of power, where the one who "includes" the other person does so from spaces of dominance. The theorist Walter Mignolo says, that "[I]nclusion is a one-way street, not a reciprocal right. The enunciative place from which inclusion is established is always a place that maintains control of knowledge and decision-making power through racial and gender lines, political orientations, and economic regulations."[10]
In gender discussions, this "control of knowledge" is quite evident when most gender discussions in churches take place in spaces governed by cisgender heterosexual men and women who hold the idea that "man" and "woman" are unquestionably defined categories that point to specific socially and theologically acceptable bodies, roles, behaviors, and manifestations. Therefore, understanding gender as an element in constant motion that is never finalized at any juncture encourages what Althaus-Reid has termed “indecent theology,” insofar as it invites reflection and re-imagination of God from more just and peaceful spaces. It also invites us to question the spaces in which these discussions about gender, sexuality, inclusion, and theology take place. Therefore, understanding that there is no definitive map or specific way of existing as a person or expressing gender and sexuality allows us to explore a theology that opens spaces for reflection, interconnection, and love among all people who share the Good News of the Gospel. I would like to conclude by inviting us to reflect on what it means to imagine this theology that opens up to the sexual and gender experiences of individuals.
Throughout this week, we will be working on a theme centered around "mountains, and" understanding them, in many cases, as theological ideas and thoughts that, for years, have tried to tell us how and in what ways God exists or is thought of. These ideas of God have also led us to establish unique ways of thinking and understanding our fellow human beings. In the coming days, we will delve deeper into possible colonial influences on these theologies. However, regarding the consideration of gender from a diverse theological space, it is important to understand that this task invites us to question theologies that have been established as unquestionable and absolute for centuries. Rethinking gender and theology from diversity and fluidity also implies questioning our own ideas of God, our own understandings of the Sacred, our own biblical applications and notions, and our own sense of church and community. It also implies, simultaneously, questioning the academic and ecclesial mechanisms and methodologies that have been used for centuries to think and imagine God,m. Mechanisms that have been understood as unquestionable methods but have not considered, without considering the potential sexist and colonial baggage that underlies them. We will talk more about this in the coming days.
However, it is important to recognize that this task is not easy, simple, or quick. Probably, it may also be necessary to understand that the theological mountains that seek to confine individuals within absolute definitions of "man" and "woman" are difficult to move, as there will always be those who maintain a rigid and dominant understanding of these categories. Therefore, my invitation this morning is for us to focus on questioning our own convictions from the understanding that each person exists in constant processes of self-discovery of their sexuality and gender. My invitation is also for us to imagine a God who accompanies us in the midst of such processes, helping us discover our sexualities and gender identities as divine gifts and expressions of His love. My invitation, finally, is to question our theological methods and mechanisms, pointing out their colonial and sexist foundations. It seems to me that these are important tools that will help us gradually climb the mountains of discrimination, misogyny, and oppression in order to overcome them.
Notes:
[1] Judith Butler, El Género En Disputa: El Feminismo y La Subversión de La Identidad (Barcelona, España: Paidós, 2007); Michel Foucault, Historia de La Sexualidad 1: La Voluntad Del Saber. (Madrid, España: Editores S.A., 1976); Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity, trans. Bernard Frechtman (New York: Open Road, Interated Media, 2018); Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008).
[2] Susana E. Matallana-Peláez, “From Gender to Omeotlization: Toward a Decolonial Ontology,” Hypatia 35, no. 3 (2020): 373–92; María Lugones, “Colonialidad y Género,” in Revista Tábula Rasa, vol. 9 (Bogotá, Colombia, 2008), 73–101; Laura Mercedes Oyhantcabal, “Los Aportes de Los Feminismos Decolonial y Latinoamericano,” Anduli: Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales, no. 20 (2012): 97–115; Oyèrónkẹ́. Oyěwùmí, The Invention of Women: Making an African Sense of Western Gender Discourses (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997).
[3] Oyěwùmí, The Invention of Women: Making an African Sense of Western Gender Discourses, 42.
[4] For a profound explanation about historizing patriarchy and gender in pre-colonial societies, please consult Oyhantcabal, “Los Aportes de Los Feminismos Decolonial y Latinoamericano.”
[5] Butler, El Género En Disputa: El Feminismo y La Subversión de La Identidad, 70 Translation mine.
[6] Ver Gloria. Anzaldúa, Light in the Dark=Luz En Lo Oscuro: Rewriting Identity, Spirituality, Reality, ed. AnaLouise Keating (Durham: Duke University Press, 2015), 65–66.
[7] Marcella Althaus-Reid, La Teología Indecente: Perversiones Teológicas En Sexo, Género y Política. (Barcelona, España: Ediciones Bellaterra, 2005).
[8] Althaus-Reid, 129 Translation mine.
[9] Marcella Althaus-Reid, “Marx En Un Bar Gay: La Teología Indecente Como Una Reflexión Sobre La Teología de La Liberación y La Sexualidad,” in Numen: Revista de Estudos e Pesquisa Da Religiao, vol. 11, 2008, 67–68 Translation mine.
[10] Walter Mignolo, The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options (Durham & London: Duke University Press, 2011).
