Question 5.96

5.96 In many speeches, and in this book, you explicitly denounce gender theory. Why this repeated insistence?

African philosophy declares: “Man is nothing without woman, woman is nothing without man, and the two are nothing without a third element, which is the child.” Fundamentally, the African view of man is trinitarian. In each of us there is something of the divine; the one Triune God dwells within us and imbues our whole being.

According to gender theory, there is no ontological difference between man and woman. It claims that masculine and feminine identities are not inscribed in nature but are only the result of a social construct, a role played by individuals through social tasks and functions. For these theorists, gender is performative, and the differences between man and woman are nothing but oppressive norms, cultural stereotypes, and social constructs that have to be undone so as to arrive at parity between man and woman. The idea of a constructed identity actually denies in an unrealistic way the importance of the sexed body. A man will never become a woman, and she will never become a man, no matter what mutilations one or the other agrees to undergo. To say that human sexuality no longer depends on the identity of a man or a woman but rather on sexual orientations, such as homosexuality, is nightmarish totalitarianism.

I see no possible future for such deception. I am more worried about the way in which States and international organizations are trying to impose by any means, often rapidly, the so-called deconstructive philosophy of gender. If sexuality is only a social, cultural construct, we end up calling into question the way in which mankind has reproduced itself since its origins. Indeed, it is almost difficult to take such an outrageous view seriously. If some scholars go along with this fantastic, dangerous talk, that is their business; but I will never agree to let these theories be imposed directly or insidiously on defenseless populations. How do you expect a little child or a young adolescent from the remote African countryside to be able to defend himself against such deceitful speculations?

It is one thing truly to respect homosexual persons, who have a right to authentic respect, and quite another thing to promote homosexuality as a role model.

This way of understanding human relations is actually an attack on homosexual persons, who are victims of ideologues who do not care about their lot. Certainly, we must make sure that homosexuals do not become the target of often shameful and insidious attacks. Nevertheless, I think that it is an aberration to try to set up that sexuality as a progressive ideology. I observe an attempt by some influential structures to make homosexuality the cornerstone of a new global ethic. Every extremist ideological project bears within it its own failure; in the short term, I fear that homosexual persons will be the first victims of such political excesses.