There is a small group of American academics that have put forward a nutty theory, which theory caught the fancy of those who in fact want to do whatever they want to do for the simple reason that they feel like doing it irrespective that facts speak otherwise. This radical gender theory, as it is called, states that actual physical gender is a social construct not a physical expression of our genetic constituency. This is a dangerous theory and the legislation before Parliament, although expressed in a manner meant to address the issue of sexual equality of fact, rather than rights, totally assumes this theory and prepares the way for things to come.
I am one of the first to accept that gender is not totally an issue of physical genetic expression, in the sense that nurturing may change the direction in which it is expressed by the societal roles that may push an individual psychologically in one way or another. Even more recently than that, the new study of epigenetics clearly shows that fundamentally physical expressions of the genetic inherited DNA can in fact be altered by the social and physical environment so that the actual mendelian inherited DNA can be totally altered in its transcription and translation and read in a totally different way. This occurs as certain genes are shut down and others normally shut down, are expressed! This is the way, for example, that cancer genes normally switched off, can be switched on by factors in the physical environment, which factors we call carcinogens. Likewise, socio-emotional factors can alter the way genes are expressed in order to alter emotional expression.
The point is that although social issues and roles can point people into different gender expressions types, to deny that there is a very strong physical input from our inherited genetic make-up, needs a robust rejection. The norm shows that physical and emotional expression strongly follows our genetic inheritance. This is not to argue in favour of a genetic reductionism. Not everything boils down to our genes, but to deny that genes play a very important, I would say a majority part, in determining gender would be to counter the obvious. There is a regular norm and the norm is there for all to see! To change a norm just to accommodate people with gender issues is a fundamental mistake. Ten per cent of all Maltese people are diabetic. It is important to incorporate diabetics into the social, medical and physical programmes that help diabetics fit into society like encouraging exercise and the better availability of certain types of foods on the market, but to claim that everyone is a diabetic is folly of the first order.
This law in Parliament that everyone is voting for blindly, just to appear hip and in line with being all accepting, liberal and progressive does just that. It removes the legal concept of gender with one stroke of a pen. In order to accommodate those with an issue, everybody has to do away with the norm. Not a choice of accepting mother or father versus parents, but now everybody has to accept the designated “parents” by legal force. This is a madness of the first order and it is simply a beginning of things to follow in sexual matters, in effect creating an equality of fact rather than rights. The rest will quickly follow and those who think that voting for the current legislation is going to allow them to stop from voting for other legislation which is a sequitur, are very much mistaken. This is simply a prelude. The use of a three-line whip on this issue is a fundamental political mistake and will constrain the same political parties to be browbeaten into giving further reproductive opportunities, not rights, just to justify an equality of fact.
The way that this agenda on gay marriage was foisted on the whole PN political apparatus during the electoral campaign is reprehensible. It was surreptitiously imposed and without discussion right in the middle of the electoral campaign, when it was not politically expedient to start a debate on this issue and when the ranks and file are usually closed. I have said that I detest the way that this agenda was forced down our throats without even allowing the ethical political space for those who disagree by allowing a free vote on the issue in Parliament. This is a bad prelude to other political issues of a sensitive ethical nature and I hope that in the future things are done very differently. I also detest the fact that just because one has ethical reservations on these sexual matters, one is politically slurred and labelled a homophobe. This legislation breaks one of the fundamental rules for laws. One legislates for the necessary regular norm of a situation, not the exceptions. This is not to say that one does not pass legislation to cover contingencies, but not at the expense of the norm. This legislation before the House does just that, as it does away with norms in favour of contingencies.
Facts remain facts. There is a gender expression which is a regular norm. Even if there was not such a norm in society, that a sexual norm had not existed, the definition of marriage is its own norm. It regulates the relationship of the love and fidelity between a man and a woman with the agreement of raising the fruits of that relationship. Children have rights as well! The situation is now what it unfortunately is and with the passage of this legislation, for which everybody is directly responsible by commission, all the king’s horses and all the king’s men will never be able to put humpty together again!
Dr Asciak is a Senior Lecturer in Applied Science at MCAST.
[email protected]