Peter Espeut the Catholic priest whose homophobia has been long in happening has been told in a letter in the Gleaner which I am total agreement, now that the pope has suggested that the church on a whole should apologise to homosexuals I wonder what he is going to come with in response; as his own church head has spoken and it maybe binding to all priests.
from the Pontiff earlier this years and recent developments: Pope Francis reveals new church law to deal with paedophile priests and Christians should apologise to gay people — Pope Francis
Espeut has since shown more madness such as evidenced in previous posts:
Espeut, West says “Homophobia” was invented to abuse Christians as hate speech and The False Dichotomy of the religious right on the LGBT advocacy Godlessness, also see: My answer to Peter Espeut's rubbish on Homophobia Exposed
THE EDITOR, Sir:
I just read Peter Espeut's article titled 'Sexual identity, gender identity' (The Gleaner, June 17, 2016) and, as a sociologist myself, wanted to edify him a bit. His views do not reflect the understanding of sex and gender among mainstream sociologists in any way, shape or form.
No half-decent sociologist believes that people are born 'male' or 'female' because of their chromosomes. That would equate (fe)maleness with a chromosome or sexual organ. I know that Espeut is a male, and I have never tested his chromosomes or seen his organs! It should be obvious from just that fact that 'maleness' is not based on those factors, but describes a series of social characteristics that we have been socialised to identify (shorter hair, more toned, less shapely, voice, etc., and, most of all, dress code!). I strongly encourage Espeut to read an article called 'Doing Gender' by West and Zimmerman.
Nonsense Argument
His argument that socialisation fails when a person who is supposedly born male identifies as a female is also nonsense to sociologists. We don't see people as failures because they do not fit into our traditional norms. A person who is a Christian in Iran is not a failure because he is in a small, rejected minority. Espeut should read Foucault's 'A History of Sexuality'.
Finally, the idea that this kind of 'post-modern subjectivism' is also wrong. Gender and sexual fluidity have been part of many cultures over history. Native Americans, for instance, recognised more than two genders. Here, 'How To Be Gay' by Halperin is a good book (it's not a manual on how to become gay, but a study of the history of gay culture).
Espeut is a homophobe. I've read enough of his stuff to know that. Rather than owning it, he's dressing up his religious intolerance in pseudo-scientific discourse. Not only are his views judgemental and reactionary to an oppressed group of people, they are also very wrong.
ANDRE STEPHENS
andrestephens@outlook.com
now here is the letter in question:
THE EDITOR, Sir:
I just read Peter Espeut's article titled 'Sexual identity, gender identity' (The Gleaner, June 17, 2016) and, as a sociologist myself, wanted to edify him a bit. His views do not reflect the understanding of sex and gender among mainstream sociologists in any way, shape or form.
No half-decent sociologist believes that people are born 'male' or 'female' because of their chromosomes. That would equate (fe)maleness with a chromosome or sexual organ. I know that Espeut is a male, and I have never tested his chromosomes or seen his organs! It should be obvious from just that fact that 'maleness' is not based on those factors, but describes a series of social characteristics that we have been socialised to identify (shorter hair, more toned, less shapely, voice, etc., and, most of all, dress code!). I strongly encourage Espeut to read an article called 'Doing Gender' by West and Zimmerman.
Nonsense Argument
His argument that socialisation fails when a person who is supposedly born male identifies as a female is also nonsense to sociologists. We don't see people as failures because they do not fit into our traditional norms. A person who is a Christian in Iran is not a failure because he is in a small, rejected minority. Espeut should read Foucault's 'A History of Sexuality'.
Finally, the idea that this kind of 'post-modern subjectivism' is also wrong. Gender and sexual fluidity have been part of many cultures over history. Native Americans, for instance, recognised more than two genders. Here, 'How To Be Gay' by Halperin is a good book (it's not a manual on how to become gay, but a study of the history of gay culture).
Espeut is a homophobe. I've read enough of his stuff to know that. Rather than owning it, he's dressing up his religious intolerance in pseudo-scientific discourse. Not only are his views judgemental and reactionary to an oppressed group of people, they are also very wrong.
ANDRE STEPHENS
andrestephens@outlook.com
ENDS
As I had pointed out in a previous post, In my own journey I do believe that one can be homosexual and Christian; I do not believe that God is caught up in judging us harshly by mere sexual orientation; after all we are more than just who we have sex with or are attracted to. I ask every now and again I refer to the woman with the alabaster box story or the stoning incident where I just quoted above the line Jesus used in terms of who is more holy than others. The raising of homosexuality as the worse sin above all others then the twinning if not combining of atheism/secularism as expressed by some LGBT persons as a false dichotomy to some anti-Christian, anti God position are simply just that, false dichotomies.
Jesus himself never spoke to homosexuality in a discriminatory fashion barring where Jesus in a teaching on the rapture makes what appears to be a neutral non-discriminatory reference where it read (King James Version):
also see:
.mkv_000108708.jpg){kind=spacer}
.mkv_000109059.jpg){kind=spacer}
.mkv_000113988.jpg){kind=spacer}
+(Light).jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment