I haven't read this book but I have read several articles by Favale in which she explicates her idealized views on sex and gender. As someone who spent a couple of decades trying to reconcile all that the Catholic Church says about women with the feeling that absolutely none of it was true in my personal experience, until I finally learned about the category of non-binary and stopped caring what the Catholic Church tells me I should believe or do, my impression of Favale on this subject is always "me thinks she doth protest too much."
At the root of the problem is a category error about what "identity" means. The Catholic Church, and Favale trying to be "faithful" to its teachings, assume that identity refers to an ontological and unchangeable quality in a person. A more accurate way to talk about her concerns would be to stick to purely Aristotelian language and talk about causes versus accidents. Except most people today don't believe that Aristotelian metaphysics reflect reality, so essentialists just assume this meaning of "identity" to criticize the idea that identity is malleable, without ever clearly revealing the definition and a priori assumptions undergirding that criticism.
Identity is actually about how we *perceive* ourselves and others in society, recognizing what is unique to a person and what they do or don't have in common with others, and what we project to others to influence their perception of us. We all identify with hundreds of categories--Catholic, atheist, short, tall, Cubs fan, White Sox fan, classical music enthusiast, red haired, blonde, etc. Most of these are freely chosen and/or can change over time; a few like adult height, the gametes in our bodies, and who our biological ancestors are, cannot change. Why should the gametes in our bodies be so much more important than any other aspect of our unique human existence that it should determine how we dress, what names and pronouns we use, or the purpose we discern for our lives? And is it a "lie" to wear elevator shoes, dye one's hair a different color, or give the name of adoptive parents instead of biological parents when asked who their mother and father are? If not, then why should it be considered a "lie" to present oneself with gendered markers such as clothing, names, pronouns, or even body parts that are different from those one was born with?
No one is running around claiming that persons born with ovaries can produce sperm, or that persons born with testicles can produce eggs. So what's her point about supposed "lies" when it comes to gamete differences? She even apparently misses the factual point that sex cannot be defined by any positive absolutes, only negative ones--what males and females always CANNOT do, since there are measurable portions of people whose reproductive systems do not work "according to design."
None of this has any relevance to anyone unless you believe that gametes are destiny. And I think Favale has a love-hate relationship with the idea that this is so. I hope she can get free of this knot that Catholic academia will have gender non-conforming egg-producers tied into.
I appreciate your approach to the book. I have been worried to see a lot of my Catholic peers voraciously devouring the book and accepting it prima facie without engaging in the nuance of this conversation.
Seeing your thoughtful review leads me to want to read the book and engage with it on a deeper intellectual level. I also just want to commend you for your dedication to unpacking the anger the book caused you and articulating it so gracefully. So much of this particular conversation around gender identity and expression devolves into vitriol and hate.
I have not read Favale's book but have given long consideration to this issue having been privileged to have gay persons share their stories and struggles with me. I have long felt that Catholic Theology of sex and marriage is gravely deficient. Philosophy is great but it has to give way to revealed truth which is that it is not our genitals that make us in the image of God! All the creatures who were created before humans had genitals but were not declared to be the "image of the Godself." It is very difficult to unravel what is that image and how we live it out from all the arguments surrounding sex and gender because finally human love involves physicality in some form. Nevertheless, we are distinct and our love life and friendships involve that distinction. One of the basis of Natural Law is observation. Well then, let us observe fully the whole spectrum of relatedness not just genitals and not assuming that they dictate the whole conversation. Thank you for your article.
Bravo, Chris. One of the best pieces you’ve written in some time (not that the others recently were bad at all!) This one was particularly compelling and interesting. I was grateful to here more of your personal story towards the end, too.
Just found & subscribed to your substack. This is such a thoughtful & well-written review. I think Favale has a lot of valuable thoughts & insights, but ultimately the focus on gametes simply doesn't hold.
H.L. Norwich above expresses it far better than I could, but I would love to see Favale address one simply & biological reality: The existence of androgen-insensitive males. These are people who produce male gametes and lack most female reproductive organs, but in every other way their bodies are female, down to hormone levels, external genitalia & the presence of a vagina. People often don't even know they have testes until they don't experience menarche (while still going through female puberty) and, to my knowledge, almost invariably consider themselves & live as women. Would Favale really, truly advocate that these women refer to themselves as men from the moment they learn of their internal testes? Should they immediately transfer to using the boys' locker room and bathrooms at their middle schools, or perhaps be directed to solely use single-stall individual restrooms? Is it now a lie for them to use a feminine name? Would Favale demur from using she/her pronouns for them & insist that "he" pronouns better represent "the truth"?
I cannot imagine anyone would, unless committed to an intellectual theory to the point of tying themself in knots over it. And if androgen-insensitive male people are girls and women who basically have a rare variety of infertility, if this exception is acknowledged and they are to be referred to with feminine pronouns etc., the "gametes are the sole determinant of sex, gender, and pronouns" claim falls apart.
Thanks for this careful and detailed review of Favale's book. I've been considering purchasing it. I'm a cradle Catholic, born in the pre-VII church, who thrived on the VII church during high school and college, both in Catholic institutions. I have a Ph.D in chemistry and served in vounteer and paid positions for my Catholic parish and the diocese. I have a son who came out as gay fifteen years ago. Later, when I began to work full time in pastoral ministry, I got to know several young persons who later transitioned (ftm). Several years went by in which I didn't see them, but was astonished when I met them again. They are seriously different people now, not so miserable that you wanted to just hug them to make them feel better, but people who engage with the world and with themselves in a better way. Those up close and personal experiences have made me seek to find a honest look at the science of human sexuality, both physically and psychologically, and Catholic theology. I had wondered if this book might be worthwhile. I'm somewhat disappointed by what you describe about her reliance on Aristotelian natural law. No scientist starts from an Aristotelian perspective on science, but perhaps it would still be worthwhile to read. Thanks again.
Thanks for writing, Chris. I appreciated and admired the book; I am excited about the idea catching on that biological-based definitions of sex actually bust the gender boxes wide open; and while I personally think some of your criticisms are reaches (comparing Christ’s words about cutting off limbs to avoid sin to cutting off sexual organs to avoid suicide) I absolutely think your comparison to Downs/Autism demands reflection. It’s absolutely true that Christians have to wrestle with the uncomfortable truth - our wounds somehow glorify God. Erasing them erases us, in a way. Christs resurrected body had wounds. The saints, we believe, perfected charity and lived heroic virtue while still super flawed and wounded. Why should we think the 21st century sexual issues du jour would be any worse than any other complicated, non-ideal, anti-integration traits or proclivities of people throughout history?
I stumbled upon this after googling reviews of Favale’s book. I really appreciate your willingness to both engage her argument and appreciate many aspects of it even though you struggled with some of it on a personal level.
I was telling a friend today that the current discourse around sex and gender is so broken because it has been flattened and stripped of any nuance or thoughtfulness. We all need to be more willing to engage with different perspectives and ideas even when it is challenging for us personally.
I will say that for me personally, as someone who grew up in a more fundamentalist evangelical context, that engaging with anything that purported to present a “traditional Christian worldview,” whether Catholic or Protestant, has felt exhausting and something I’ve been unwilling to do, despite the fact that I have continued to maintain one foot in Christianity as an Episcopalian.
Lately, however, partly because I’ve done a lot of my healing (and just getting older), I’m interested in re-engaging some of these viewpoints. Finding perspectives like yours is really valuable.
Well, this was a tab worth keeping open for a month until I made the time to read every word. Great review.
I feel both vindicated in my admiration of Favale *and* directly challenged in several important respects (and I don't find myself with satisfactory replies). This will need a reread or three.
Thank you, Chris. I have not read Favale's book but your review sums up my feeling towards her thesis. I'm also really tired of the feminism she and other present as somehow radical or innovative -- it's not, it's conservative talking points -- while refusing to engage with some a actual feminist Catholic work that is not always orthodox but needs to be discussed (e.g., Margaret Farley, Rosemary Radford Ruether, etc.).
I used to be less understanding of transgender people, thinking there are something that cannot / shouldn't be changed about ourselves, like myself having autism. I'm really embarrassed I ever thought like that. I think trans individuals do truly misaligned with their gender and uncomfortable with bodies in a way that cis individuals cannot begin to comprehend, and just offer compassion.
I haven't read this book but I have read several articles by Favale in which she explicates her idealized views on sex and gender. As someone who spent a couple of decades trying to reconcile all that the Catholic Church says about women with the feeling that absolutely none of it was true in my personal experience, until I finally learned about the category of non-binary and stopped caring what the Catholic Church tells me I should believe or do, my impression of Favale on this subject is always "me thinks she doth protest too much."
At the root of the problem is a category error about what "identity" means. The Catholic Church, and Favale trying to be "faithful" to its teachings, assume that identity refers to an ontological and unchangeable quality in a person. A more accurate way to talk about her concerns would be to stick to purely Aristotelian language and talk about causes versus accidents. Except most people today don't believe that Aristotelian metaphysics reflect reality, so essentialists just assume this meaning of "identity" to criticize the idea that identity is malleable, without ever clearly revealing the definition and a priori assumptions undergirding that criticism.
Identity is actually about how we *perceive* ourselves and others in society, recognizing what is unique to a person and what they do or don't have in common with others, and what we project to others to influence their perception of us. We all identify with hundreds of categories--Catholic, atheist, short, tall, Cubs fan, White Sox fan, classical music enthusiast, red haired, blonde, etc. Most of these are freely chosen and/or can change over time; a few like adult height, the gametes in our bodies, and who our biological ancestors are, cannot change. Why should the gametes in our bodies be so much more important than any other aspect of our unique human existence that it should determine how we dress, what names and pronouns we use, or the purpose we discern for our lives? And is it a "lie" to wear elevator shoes, dye one's hair a different color, or give the name of adoptive parents instead of biological parents when asked who their mother and father are? If not, then why should it be considered a "lie" to present oneself with gendered markers such as clothing, names, pronouns, or even body parts that are different from those one was born with?
No one is running around claiming that persons born with ovaries can produce sperm, or that persons born with testicles can produce eggs. So what's her point about supposed "lies" when it comes to gamete differences? She even apparently misses the factual point that sex cannot be defined by any positive absolutes, only negative ones--what males and females always CANNOT do, since there are measurable portions of people whose reproductive systems do not work "according to design."
None of this has any relevance to anyone unless you believe that gametes are destiny. And I think Favale has a love-hate relationship with the idea that this is so. I hope she can get free of this knot that Catholic academia will have gender non-conforming egg-producers tied into.
I appreciate your approach to the book. I have been worried to see a lot of my Catholic peers voraciously devouring the book and accepting it prima facie without engaging in the nuance of this conversation.
Seeing your thoughtful review leads me to want to read the book and engage with it on a deeper intellectual level. I also just want to commend you for your dedication to unpacking the anger the book caused you and articulating it so gracefully. So much of this particular conversation around gender identity and expression devolves into vitriol and hate.
You remained truthful and honest.
Thank you, Chris!
I have not read Favale's book but have given long consideration to this issue having been privileged to have gay persons share their stories and struggles with me. I have long felt that Catholic Theology of sex and marriage is gravely deficient. Philosophy is great but it has to give way to revealed truth which is that it is not our genitals that make us in the image of God! All the creatures who were created before humans had genitals but were not declared to be the "image of the Godself." It is very difficult to unravel what is that image and how we live it out from all the arguments surrounding sex and gender because finally human love involves physicality in some form. Nevertheless, we are distinct and our love life and friendships involve that distinction. One of the basis of Natural Law is observation. Well then, let us observe fully the whole spectrum of relatedness not just genitals and not assuming that they dictate the whole conversation. Thank you for your article.
Bravo, Chris. One of the best pieces you’ve written in some time (not that the others recently were bad at all!) This one was particularly compelling and interesting. I was grateful to here more of your personal story towards the end, too.
Just found & subscribed to your substack. This is such a thoughtful & well-written review. I think Favale has a lot of valuable thoughts & insights, but ultimately the focus on gametes simply doesn't hold.
H.L. Norwich above expresses it far better than I could, but I would love to see Favale address one simply & biological reality: The existence of androgen-insensitive males. These are people who produce male gametes and lack most female reproductive organs, but in every other way their bodies are female, down to hormone levels, external genitalia & the presence of a vagina. People often don't even know they have testes until they don't experience menarche (while still going through female puberty) and, to my knowledge, almost invariably consider themselves & live as women. Would Favale really, truly advocate that these women refer to themselves as men from the moment they learn of their internal testes? Should they immediately transfer to using the boys' locker room and bathrooms at their middle schools, or perhaps be directed to solely use single-stall individual restrooms? Is it now a lie for them to use a feminine name? Would Favale demur from using she/her pronouns for them & insist that "he" pronouns better represent "the truth"?
I cannot imagine anyone would, unless committed to an intellectual theory to the point of tying themself in knots over it. And if androgen-insensitive male people are girls and women who basically have a rare variety of infertility, if this exception is acknowledged and they are to be referred to with feminine pronouns etc., the "gametes are the sole determinant of sex, gender, and pronouns" claim falls apart.
Thanks for this careful and detailed review of Favale's book. I've been considering purchasing it. I'm a cradle Catholic, born in the pre-VII church, who thrived on the VII church during high school and college, both in Catholic institutions. I have a Ph.D in chemistry and served in vounteer and paid positions for my Catholic parish and the diocese. I have a son who came out as gay fifteen years ago. Later, when I began to work full time in pastoral ministry, I got to know several young persons who later transitioned (ftm). Several years went by in which I didn't see them, but was astonished when I met them again. They are seriously different people now, not so miserable that you wanted to just hug them to make them feel better, but people who engage with the world and with themselves in a better way. Those up close and personal experiences have made me seek to find a honest look at the science of human sexuality, both physically and psychologically, and Catholic theology. I had wondered if this book might be worthwhile. I'm somewhat disappointed by what you describe about her reliance on Aristotelian natural law. No scientist starts from an Aristotelian perspective on science, but perhaps it would still be worthwhile to read. Thanks again.
Thanks for writing, Chris. I appreciated and admired the book; I am excited about the idea catching on that biological-based definitions of sex actually bust the gender boxes wide open; and while I personally think some of your criticisms are reaches (comparing Christ’s words about cutting off limbs to avoid sin to cutting off sexual organs to avoid suicide) I absolutely think your comparison to Downs/Autism demands reflection. It’s absolutely true that Christians have to wrestle with the uncomfortable truth - our wounds somehow glorify God. Erasing them erases us, in a way. Christs resurrected body had wounds. The saints, we believe, perfected charity and lived heroic virtue while still super flawed and wounded. Why should we think the 21st century sexual issues du jour would be any worse than any other complicated, non-ideal, anti-integration traits or proclivities of people throughout history?
I stumbled upon this after googling reviews of Favale’s book. I really appreciate your willingness to both engage her argument and appreciate many aspects of it even though you struggled with some of it on a personal level.
I was telling a friend today that the current discourse around sex and gender is so broken because it has been flattened and stripped of any nuance or thoughtfulness. We all need to be more willing to engage with different perspectives and ideas even when it is challenging for us personally.
I will say that for me personally, as someone who grew up in a more fundamentalist evangelical context, that engaging with anything that purported to present a “traditional Christian worldview,” whether Catholic or Protestant, has felt exhausting and something I’ve been unwilling to do, despite the fact that I have continued to maintain one foot in Christianity as an Episcopalian.
Lately, however, partly because I’ve done a lot of my healing (and just getting older), I’m interested in re-engaging some of these viewpoints. Finding perspectives like yours is really valuable.
Well, this was a tab worth keeping open for a month until I made the time to read every word. Great review.
I feel both vindicated in my admiration of Favale *and* directly challenged in several important respects (and I don't find myself with satisfactory replies). This will need a reread or three.
Thank you, Chris. I have not read Favale's book but your review sums up my feeling towards her thesis. I'm also really tired of the feminism she and other present as somehow radical or innovative -- it's not, it's conservative talking points -- while refusing to engage with some a actual feminist Catholic work that is not always orthodox but needs to be discussed (e.g., Margaret Farley, Rosemary Radford Ruether, etc.).
I used to be less understanding of transgender people, thinking there are something that cannot / shouldn't be changed about ourselves, like myself having autism. I'm really embarrassed I ever thought like that. I think trans individuals do truly misaligned with their gender and uncomfortable with bodies in a way that cis individuals cannot begin to comprehend, and just offer compassion.