In which I postulate once again on emptiness...

I'm doing research for my Buddhism in America final paper. I'm writing about women in Buddhism, surprise, surprise. The reading is bringing me back to some of the fundamental questions that I seem always to be asking myself in my line of scholarship about sex, gender, and Buddhism, such as:

1) How does one resolve the apparent contradictions between teachings on emptiness, and the traditional roles/rules for and about/emphasis on physical sex in Buddhism for both the lay and monastic communities?

2) Can a kind of Buddhist liberation theology for GLBTTIA folk be built around Mahayana Sutras in which the emptiness of form, and ergo gender are demonstrated in the change from female to male undergone by deities, Bodhisattvas, etc. ?

3) How can it be impressed upon people that emptiness does not mean that things aren't real in the conventional sense, and that they don't matter for that reason, but rather that because of their ultimate emptiness the immediacy of experience needs to be given its due weight in an attempt to understand and eliminate suffering? (in this instance, in the case of sexualities and gender identities)

I have heard it argued in several forums that if indeed form is empty, than there should be no need for people to undergo physical transition.
I have also read and heard various accounts of, and arguments for, the earlier/traditional rules and views in regard to sex and gender which disqualify gender variant and intersexed people from becoming monastics, and imply that they have a low birth as a result of bad karma, and that they need to work with what they've got and hope to do better next time.

On the first matter - see #3. I believe that the gender binary is a social construction and that its pretty much bullshit. I am also a realist. We live in society, and within the frameworks of its constructions whether we like it or not, therefore people need to do what they need to do in order to be as complete, happy, and fulfilled in the world in which they live, which includes transitioning. Just because something is not ultimately real doesn't mean that it does not immediately affect our qualities of life. We can't all just pretend to be advanced beings and as though our suffering doesn't exist because it lacks inherent nature.

On the second, that sucks. I understand that there is not a source of authority or power-structure in place to refute or repeal these rules, and I think that therefore the onus to do so is upon practitioners and scholars. As with any spiritual tradition, Buddhists need to take into account that some of the content of their spiritual texts is a result of the time and source of their authorship, and not necessarily part and parcel with the meaning of them, or ultimately part or in service of the Dharma.

Kinsey out.