Thoughts on Original Sin by Tatha Wiley (2002) 7C

The claim (of pre-2012) feminists that “gender is culturally constructed” must now (in 2012) be regarded as radically inadequate.

However, a “language” does not have to be adequate to engender social constructions.

The (pre-2012) feminist claim may be regarded as a button that goes into a buttonhole of a symbolic order.  The claim is axiomatic. The claim and the “language of feminism” compose a tautology that does not even have words for the “bio-“ of “biocultural”.

The disclaimer that “gender” is not due to “nature” veils the “bio-“ as well, because it presents “nature” as an entity separate from culture, not co-evolved.

The (pre-2012) feminist theologians (most discussed in Wiley’s Chapter 7) “name” the fundamental sin through deduction.  If “gender is culturally constructed” and if “gender-bias distorts personal relations and social systems”, then the fundamental sin must be related to gender (“sexism”) and culture (“patriarchy”).

If this is so, feminists are free to explore the historic question of the origin of male privilege in the ancient world.  Wiley dutifully spends pages on this, plus the next deduction:  Jesus should be interpreted in light of these findings.

All these deductions are flawed.  “Gender” is not exclusively cultural.  It is biocultural.