Genders were an afterthought?

There is not much new in this article.  She mostly recycles old (and silly - David and Jonathan?  We're still making that argument?  Really?) arguments.  She does avoid semantic arguments with interpreting Paul.  Rather, she chooses to simply dismiss him.  There was one argument which was new - at least to me.  I have personally never heard the argument made that God originally created humans as androgenous and therefore chaste.  "God’s original plan was sexual unity in one body, not two.  The Genesis creation stories can support the notion that sexual intercourse is designed to reunite male and female into one body, but they can also suggest that God’s blessing was first placed on an undifferentiated body that didn’t have sex at all."  She bases this interpretation on the gnostic gospel of Philip and a third century Jewish rabbi.  Further, she believes that the resurrection ("spiritual") body which Paul envisions is also androgenous.  Turns out that genders are a result of the fall (not the type of interpretation that you come to expect from a feminist scholar).  Not only does this exegesis stretch the text beyond its breaking point.  To then base a justification of homosexuality on such an interpretation is clearly question begging.