St Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy through the transgender lens
“Progress leads to chaos if not anchored in tradition. Tradition becomes rigid, if it does not prepare the way for progress. But a perverted traditionalism; And a misguided progressivism, lead each other to a deadly excess, hardly leaving any ground between them.” — Bernhard Philberth
I recently submitted this reflection paper to my university. Feedback from my assessor are in italics and brackets:
What does the many Thomisms reveal about the nature of philosophy, in the context of Aeterni Patris and Fides et Ratio, and what might Thomistic philosophy mean for me and my life?
Philosophy is complicated. From a Catholic perspective, philosophy may seem simple and straightforward if it was all just about Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas, as important as they are. But just as Aquinas built on Aristotle’s works, it is no surprise that others, with a claim to be Thomistic, believe there is room for building upon Aquinas’ work.
Arguably, the Modern philosopher most influential in challenging Aquinas’ works was René Descartes. In particular, Descartes’ dualism, despite its flaws, has been extraordinarily influential in slowly but surely shifting Western societal and cultural thought to the point that some contemporary Christians are not certain that human persons are body-soul composites. Unsurprisingly, gender theory is increasingly mainstream.
(I think I understand the connection that you are making between gender theory which makes a real separation between the person’s body and the person’s identity/soul, and the Cartesian body/soul split — but it would be better if you spelled it out a bit more here.)
Aquinas rightly deserves to be known as the Angelic Doctor, however his works alone were never going to be sufficient in addressing future philosophical issues that would emerge and complicate over time. The Catholic Church was either slow to react to Cartesian dualism and other Modern philosophies, and/or just simply did not react effectively at all. It took the Papal encyclical Aeterni Patris of 1879 to finally admit the Church had shortcomings in defending its Scholastic philosophy.
The encyclical was the first step in reviving said philosophy, in Aquinas’ spirit, giving rise to the many Thomisms to come. Aquinas may be a canonised Saint, but he is not divine person, and could not humanly possibly reveal all that there is to philosophy — it is the role of Thomists to advance his cause for a contemporary world.
Philosophy is not only complicated, it is also an intellectually competitive pursuit, because the complication and complexity could only be possibly clarified through debate and dialogue. Aquinas himself would expect no less of the Thomists and others who came after him — his Medieval disputations were proof of this, showing respect for those he disagreed with, like Averroes. The following Metaphysics quote of Aristotle best sums up the nature of philosophy:
“And if anyone in treating this subject should be found to form a different opinion from the one stated here, we must respect both views but accept the more certain.”
So which Thomism is more certain than the others? The Papal encyclical Fides et Ratio, like Aeterni Patris, emphasised that faith and reason go hand-in-hand, just as body and soul go hand-in hand, in order to reach the truth. On this basis, the Thomism that is more certain than others would be the Thomism that best integrates faith and reason in its philosophy. Moreover, it seems that the process of determining the best Thomism requires debate, and preferrably, dialogue. Does this not sound like the story of my life!
I started my Master of Liberal Arts because I was a lapsed Catholic returning to the faith, and I wanted to return to the faith on an intellectual journey. The reason I lapsed as a teenager was that I had a bad experience explaining my gender dysphoria to a religious sister. Like other courses, I have chosen at the University of Notre Dame, I chose to study Aquinas and Thomism to figure out what Thomistic/Catholic philosophy and Catholic theology means for me as a trans woman. Applied philosophy is indeed complicated, waiting to be untangled by dialogue, if possible.
Unsurprisingly, of all the Thomisms that I have studied this Study Period, the three that I relate to the most is Phenomenology, Semiotics and MacIntyre’s Ethics. Even more unsurprising is that my research essay was on the function of the body in human experience according to Thomistic personalism.
Phenomenology spoke to me in the sense that I felt that my experience with gender dysphoria was too unique for many people to understand what I was going through emotionally, and that this was under-acknowledged. I started my gender transition in the late 2000s, and I felt this would allow me to present myself to myself and others in a manner less distracting to my consciousness. The best definition of the ‘self’ that I have come across is “the [enduring] psychological structure that organizes and gives meaning to human experience,” noting that emotion is not structural.[1]
With the help of hormone replacement therapy, dress and legal name change, I enabled others to bracket any preconceptions they may have about my biological sex. That is, through my practical actions, I directed the consciousness of others to my gender presentation. Not because I am attempting to present myself as a woman phenomenon for trickery, but because I genuinely perceive myself to be said phenomena.
It appears that the Thomistic personalist response to my subjective experience is that whilst I am not reducible to my biological sex, there remains an objective truth to my body. On this note, it is on topic to refer to semiotics. My pre-transition sexual features is arguably an Augustinian sign of my telos to generate in another. However, not all signs are corporeal — Aquinas arguably referred to incorporeal signs, such as concepts.
If a phenomenon is a concept, then the transgender phenomenon is a sign, and a way of relating according to Poinsot. I relate to myself as a (trans) woman, and the sign that is my gender presentation helps others relate to me as a (trans) woman. Of course, it is not sufficiently certain that others will relate to me as a woman, since it is Thomistic signs that are what integrates phenomenology — see the Thomistic personalist response to my subjective experience.
Therefore what Thomistic philosophy means for me as a trans woman is indeed complicated, and seemingly irreconcilable. Nevertheless, it should not discourage me from growing my Catholic faith. Indeed, in the spirit and intent of MacIntyre on tradition, how can I, as a Catholic trans woman appeal to the Catholic tradition and avoid relativism simultaneously? Given my unique human experience, it appears that I am in a privileged position to make Catholic sense of the problems, if any, of say, gender theory, better than the gender theorists can themselves. This is a good start to dialogue.
(This was a fine example of a reflection. You referred to both encyclicals and brought so many insights from this course to bear on your own life. Your reflection on the nature of philosophy was well-integrated with the reflection on how Thomisms might analyse the transgender phenomenon. You show true philosophic spirit and a strong desire to know which is the beginning of all philosophy. Well done.)