Relation and Sex Differences

I am debating whether I should bring up this idea because I may have trouble concisely making my point . . . but I rarely see angels where I tread any way. O.k. what do I mean in the title by relation? Hold on to your hats because I am going to try to briefly explain some metaphysics which I realize is fraught with danger (Hiérothée you had better turn away). When we are talking about reality (both visible and invisible, material and spiritual) there are two categories of “being.” Things can be either substances (this does not necessarily mean material substances, there are spiritual substances—e.g. the soul) or accidents. Substances exist on their own but accidents only exist by inhering in a substance (e.g. black only exists in conjunction with a substance such as a piece of paper). So the question arises about masculinity and femininity. Are these substances or accidents? If a substance then men and women would be of two different substances. The significance of this is that this would mean man and women possess two separate nature—which cannot be. If that were the case there, Jesus would have only assumed the male nature and only males would have been reconciled to God. So what are masculinity and femininity. They are relations. This is analogous to the (but still different) to the Trinitarian Persons who are not separate substances, there is only one divine substance/nature, but they are Three Distinct Relations. For creatures relations are accidents in the realm of being but they are essential to personhood. The human person is a substance but it is also relational. The person is created in relation to God and others and made for volitional relationships. In fact, these relationships are necessary for holiness, for perfection. One can only fulfill himself by giving himself away. This is a necessary aspect of relationship. John Paul the Great finds in the Genesis narrative the relationality between the sexes revealed:

As Genesis 2:23 already shows, femininity finds itself, in a sense, in the presence of masculinity, while masculinity is confirmed through femininity. Precisely the function of sex, which is in a sense, “a constituent part of the person” (not just “an attribute of the person”), proves how deeply man, with all his spiritual solitude, with the never to be repeated uniqueness of his person, is constituted by the body as “he” or “she.” The presence of the feminine element, alongside the male element and together with it, signifies an enrichment for man in the whole perspective of his history, including the history of salvation (John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 49).

In the above quote, he says that Adam and Eve discover their personal identity in the presence of the other; they only discover masculinity in the presence of femininity and vice versa. Sex differences only have meaning in relation to the opposite sex. Here he shows that we can see how sex functions as a part of this self-discovery/self-identification. In our bodies, the fullness of our persons is made apparent, as an unrepeatable person who is either female or male. This has application for the discussion of those suffering from same sex attraction and so-called transgender identities. For these, there is no self-discovery or self-identification. There is no complementary other. Each confused person remains an enigma to himself and the other. This frustration prevents the gift of self from taking root and leaves the two confused persons to take rather than receive, and to try to possess and consume the other. This leads to the physical, emotional, psychological, and social damage we have been discussing for the last few months. I hope that this is not too opaque. It is worth the risk and the effort to understand this because it helps to show how all of creation has order and meaning to it. All parts of creation are created with a purpose, an end, and they must interact in the manner for which they were created or all hell breaks loose . . . literally!