Transgenderism is State Sponsored Religion

Transgenderism is State Sponsored Religion

In Catholic Christianity, the belief in the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist is called “transubstantiation.” This means that at the moment in the Mass when the priest elevates the wafer, what was a piece of bread is now the Body, Soul, Spirit, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. All that He is becomes present before us. As Jesus is part of the Trinity, He is also His Father and His Holy Spirit, as the Persons of the Trinity are in no way indistinct from each other. They are “consubstantial,” of the same substance, and so, a consecrated Host is not merely a sacred symbol or holy object—it is Triune God himself. The bread is his flesh, the wine is his blood, both species of the Eucharist are nothing less than Jesus in person. For Catholics this is literal and unequivocal.

This belief is embodied by Catholics in the protocols regarding the Eucharist. For centuries the Eucharist was regarded as so holy as to not be sullied by unconsecrated hands; lay Catholics received Communion on their knees, with the Host fed to them by being placed on their outstretched tongues. If a Host was fumbled and hit the floor, if the chalice with the very blood of Jesus spilled, this was (and is) a big deal. Since 1977, communicants have been allowed to receive the Host in their hand, to be consumed reverently before the altar (and not popped into the mouth like a lozenge). Catholics genuflect before taking a seat in the pews to acknowledge the presence of God in the consecrated Hosts that are always stored in the tabernacle behind the altar, itself a sacred space because it is the place where the miracle of transubstantiation occurs.

The concept has its roots in the philosophy of Aristotle and was brought to fruition by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. All things possess “substance” and are made particular by means of “accident.” A thing’s substance consists of the matter/material from which it is composed, and the form or “idea” of the thing (eidos). For example, if a thing is protruding from the ground, is sheathed with a layer of fibrous tissue, and extends upward in fractal patterns of branches that produce what we call “leaves,” then the thing is what we all agree is a “tree.” The accidents of the tree include the myriad variables, such as it’s height, girth, color of the bark and leaves, its particular location, whether its healthy or sick, and whatever else that distinguishes it from other trees, since not everything we recognize as trees are unilateral in their manifestation and utility. Epistemologically speaking, we agree that the substance of trees must meet particular, non-negotiable criteria in order for the object manifesting the substance to be identified as a tree, and not a dog or a rocket ship. Without this agreement about the nature of substances, communication would be impossible, as we could never be certain that what you regard as a tree meets the same criteria of substance as what I regard as a tree. There would be no impediment to my talking about what I think are horses, and you hearing me talk about what you think is ice cream. For us to communicate, the word “horse” must conjure in both our minds approximately the same criteria for the substance of the thing called a horse. It doesn’t matter if the horse you see is white and the one I see is brown; we are still talking about the same thing in the abstract. 

The foregoing discussion lends insight into the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation as an actual miracle. What happens is this: through the ritual performance of the Mass, which creates the sacred space for the miracle to occur, the substance of the bread is replaced with the substance of Jesus himself, with only the accidents of the bread remaining. The wafer is no longer substantially bread; it is substantially God. It still looks like a white wafer slightly smaller than a silver dollar, but that thing there in your hand—it made the universe. It had and still has a human body just like yours, and now its divinity is about to be incorporated into your humanity as  food, which breaks down in your digestive system and suffuses every part of your body and soul. 

 
For Catholics this is immutable truth. For others it is a risible, archaic, illogical, and counter-intuitive superstition, to be benignly tolerated by the cultured and enlightened, if not ridiculed outright. Still, no one would deny Catholics’ prerogative to believe in whatever they choose, regardless of how silly. Just as long as we don’t force any one else to believe in or revere our miracles, totus bonus in locum (“it’s all good in the ‘hood”). 

 
Transgenderism, then, is a problem with one’s substance. No one would argue that the accident of one’s reproductive organs has any effect on one’s substance as a human being; however, “male” and “female” are themselves substantial in nature, corresponding to certain commonly asserted criteria. A personal anecdote illustrates the point: one of my students interviewed me for a paper she was writing for her gender studies class. Her first question was, “how do you know you are a man?” I replied, “Because I am an adult male.” “And how do you know you are a male?” “Because I have a penis. Because I do not bleed five days a month from my genitalia. Because I have zero chance of getting pregnant.” In other words, there is a material, objective basis for our common understanding of the substances of maleness and femaleness; it is inscribed not only on our bodies, but everywhere in the natural world, where even the exceptions prove the rule. 

 
Nevertheless, we are told that men can in fact have periods; that women can struggle with prostate cancer; that trans women who can never get pregnant should have abortion rights. In so asserting, we are denying the material bases for the substances of maleness and femaleness, saying in effect that maleness and femaleness have nothing to do with bodies. But if this is so, then to what substance is the trans person appealing in the claim that he really is a woman, that she really is a man? Having eliminated biological sex as one of the criteria for the substances of maleness and femaleness, the trans person still has to resort to other physical signifiers of the gender with which they identify: wearing clothing and accessories associated with their gender identification, altering the pitch and timbre of their voices, adapting the mannerisms and names of their imagined gender and of course, surgically transforming their bodies to comport with the substantial signifiers of one sex or the other, such as breasts, or the lack thereof. And let’s not forget their constant infusion of the hormones estrogen and testosterone, singularly important to the healthy expression of biological sex in human beings. 

 
Yet none of the foregoing are necessary to validate one’s claim of being a trans person; one need only to feel the feeling that one is in the “wrong” body, assert it to oneself, and proclaim it to others. The accidents of maleness or femaleness remain, but the substance has changed. By means of a miraculous speech act, not dissimilar from God’s “fiat lux” or the priest’s words of consecration, the individual effects an ontological transformation as real to “their” ungrammatical self and to “their" fellow (sic) transgenderists as the Real Presence of Christ is to Catholics. The only difference between the two beliefs are the agents and vectors for the respective miracles. On the one hand, God himself acts on bread through the vector of the priest and the ritual of the Mass, replacing “breadness” with Jesus; on the other, a priest/ess of the Church of Radical Subjectivity speaks into reality a new substance for themselves (sic), without necessarily having to manifest any visible proof of the new ontological reality. You owe no one any proof at all that you are really a woman born into a man’s body. One’s word is all that is necessary to assert the new reality.

 
There is one more important difference between the two belief systems. The statement, “a man in dress is not a woman” can get one ostracized, harassed, fired, fined, or physically assaulted. The statement, “that cracker is not God” can be made with impunity and indeed, be met with applause. In privileging this one particular belief system over and even against all others, society and the state are effectively endorsing a religious belief, if not an organized religion per se. It would be as if Mayor Adams of New York required everyone to genuflect when passing St. Patrick’s Cathedral, or face fines up to $100,000, because, you know, God is in there. There would be outrage; hell, I would be outraged. Instead, it is the failure to genuflect before the Church of Radical Subjectivity that brings the force of law down upon one’s head: “misgendering” a trans person is regarded as an act of “hate” for which repercussions are swift and severe in practically every milieu of modern life.

 
If the state can punish us for failing or refusing to acknowledge the “reality” of a trans person’s miraculous ontological transubstantiation, and if Catholics and their miracles can be dismissed and even mocked without consequence, then the state is actively advancing the prerogatives and agenda of what is tantamount to a religious cult, whose truth claims about the fungibility of gender are as unprovable and subjective as the claims of those who seek and find Christ in the Eucharist. 

 
It all comes down to faith.

 
Now, let’s have some smart and ruthlessly ambitious attorney file a class action lawsuit on behalf of all who have been harmed by laws advancing and protecting the state sponsored religion of transgenderism, and litigate to have all such laws struck down as unconstitutional.