My position on the gender requirements for Gnostic Mass in EGC is that I don’t understand them. The only explanation that has ever been offered to me by someone who affected the policy (not talking about some random OTO member offering a rationalization) doesn’t make sense to me.
To the best of my knowledge, these policies do not reflect a correct understanding of Thelema, the mysteries of OTO, or Crowley’s views on sex. Obviously the magical/spiritual/metaphysical side of this is huge. But like so much else in Thelema and OTO mysteries, I’ve never seen anything like an even halfway-convincing argument from core principles to defend OTO USA’s position.
Draw what conclusions you will from that. Suffice to say, if someone at least felt as confused as I do about it, I would understand.
I also don’t understand the policy of relaxing these gender requirements for private masses. Private masses are still official masses. They are still supposed to be working the same magical formula (a formula, YHVH, which is ALSO applied in a IX degree sex magick operation). Any sexual metaphysics governing public masses ought to govern private masses as well; otherwise they don’t make a spicy meatball (or whatever word you feel like using for something that doesn’t magically have the same effect).
I’ve seen people draw some very unkind conclusions from this about the motivations of those who crafted this policy about the private masses. I haven’t drawn those conclusions. I genuinely do not have even the foggiest idea what motivates this policy. There’s at least been an explanation offered for the gender requirements in public mass, but I’ve never even seen an explanation of the private mass policy.
From what I’ve witnessed, the effect of relaxing the policy for private masses is actually worse than having one policy across both private and public masses. If that was done with the intention of appeasing some people (my shot in the dark attempt to understand why they did it), it had the opposite effect. It’s easy to see why. It looks like “separate but equal.”
In my opinion, it would probably be better in the long run to have one policy governing all masses and to be very up front about that and the reasoning for it. That will risk alienating some people at the outset—and maybe those in charge will be made to feel like fools by some people—but it will also prevent a lot of hurt down the line.