Gender is a matter of grammar, an in the present rhetorial setting it seems to mean a sense of "style" as masculine or feminine. I think this is irrelevant. A rather mannish woman could join a rather feminine man in the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony and have a perfectly valid and God-pleasing marriage.
She likes to bale hay? He like to make lace? No problem. Her hair is straight and short, he's got a headful of curls? No problem.
As long as they're a man and a woman, and what they do in bed includes the procreative marriage act. That's it.
"Gender" shades, slides and shape-shifts. "Sex" is a physiological fact. Marriage is defined by the two sexes, a permanent reality.
NO kidding....
I sure hope they didn't use a research grant to figure that one out.
I had the same initial reaction, as I really detest too-”meaningful” language; however, I have to say that when I read the entire article, I was very impressed with the author’s evenhanded treatment of the topic. I think his research brought out some really important, but very deeply buried, insights.
Placemark for pingout. I just read a little bit (will read tomorrow) but I am so with you on the wrong use of the word “gender”.