From his disputation on women which can be read in full here: https://www.amazon.com/Whether-Christian-Educated-Writings-Intellectual/dp/0226849996
Whether woman is a mistake of nature, a misbegotten male, is generated by accident and to that extent is a monster
Response: Such is what Aristotle lets slip out in On the generation of animals, book 2, chapter 3; and book 4, chapter 2 Thomas adopts this opinion in part I, question 92, article 1 (of the Summa Theologica) and book 3, chapter 94, of the Summa Contra Gentiles. Following him Viguerius in his Institutes, chapter 21, paragraph 2, verse 4 Also commentators on Thomas's Summa, Cajetan, Medices, and Alagona, and Ferrariensis on Contra Gentiles, book 4, chapter 94; also commentaries on the Sentences bk. 2, distinction 20, by Bonaventure, Giles, Richard. But they think this crude opinion is softened by the cure-all of a distinction that the woman is misbegotten not in herself in respect to the particular agent (which aims at its likeness) and that she comes into existence out of the weakness of the acting force, the disposition of matter, or some external change; but that in herself woman comes about from the intention of the universal agent and of nature. But this distinction presupposes and assumes what is to be proven: as if the man alone generates, and not the woman (concerning which soon below), even to the extent that in generating the particular he always intends the more perfect, i.e., the male; since he intends a human being, i.e., to generate a likeness of himself; but not this or that sex of human being and since he aims at a perfection that is of the essence and of the whole, not accidental.
This monstrous opinion is refuted from scripture and reason.
From scripture
(1) From Matthew 19:4: "Have you not read that from the beginning He made them male and female?" Genesis 1:27: "And God created human beings.... male and female he created them." If God from the beginning through creation immediately brought forth the woman equally with the man: therefore through providence afterward he brings forth women and men mediately and indeed for their own sake according to secondary causes. (2) Since in the state of righteousness, according to the blessing in Genesis 1:28, human beings were generated both female and male in the perfection due to them by nature; and the original "Indeed, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31) would have continued among the works of God. Therefore every defect, weakening, disorder, or monstrosity was absent. For all those defects and all weaknesses entered through sin: "For the creation was subjected to futility ... " (Romans 8:20); "creation will be set free from its bondage to decay" (8:21); "cursed is the ground because of you ... " (Genesis 3:17); "and the sky over your head shall be bronze, and the earth ... iron" (Deuteronomy 28:23). (3) Since in the rebirth and restitution of the world God blessed Noah and his sons, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth" (Genesis 9:1); that is, so that from men and women men and women will be generated according to the order and law of nature established in the first creation (Genesis 1:28), so that no order, no law, no intention of a particular agent or generating force ought to be imagined here distinct from the law, order, and intention of the universal agent or of nature whether naturing or natured.
From reason
(1) Since a general definition of monster does not apply to women: therefore she is not a mistake of nature or a monster. The definition that Fortunius Lycetus (Concerning Monsters, book 1, chaps. 11-13) developed, explained, and approved is this: "A monster is a subcelestial being with an aberrant constitution of its members, inspiring horror and astonishment in those seeing it, coming into existence rather rarely, born out of the secondary constitution of nature on account of some impediment in the elements of its configuration.” (2) Since what happens normally is not an aberration of nature; and since no fewer women are born than men, on the contrary, more women are born than men. Therefore woman is not an accident, an aberration, a mistake, or monster. (3) Since if nature frequently produces women who are called "viragoes," with qualities and gifts both of mind and body more perfect than many, if not most, men, therefore those women are not mistakes or defects of nature. (4) An argument specifically against Aristotle is that whatever has been from eternity is not an accident, aberration, or mistake. But the generation of females has been with the world and the nature of things from eternity, according to Aristotle. Therefore it is not an accident or mistake of nature. (5) An argument specifically against Thomas and his followers: Since it was right that woman should be produced in the first production, part 1, qu. 92, art. 1; and since in the first constitution of nature all works were perfect and very good by the intention of God: therefore so too was the woman who was produced then. And consequently according to the order then instituted in human beings, "increase and multiply," women and men were to be continued and perpetuated equally through generation and the succession of individuals. This is over against what is what is put forth by some, concerning women changed into men, from which it follows that the female is something imperfect and inferior and for that reason the male, not the female, is intended by nature when generating. That is just as valid as if you say that males are imperfect and weak by nature and for that reason not intended by her, but rather females: because males may sometimes be changed into females. But of this mutation more below. This fiction of Cajetan in his commentary on Genesis 2 is refuted so easily and is brought forth by him without proof. But Pereira says in his commentary (bk. 4) on Genesis 2:23: "Hear how Cajetan, persisting in his commentary and opinions, which we explained above, interprets these words: 'Clearly,' he says, 'Moses indicates by these words the nature as well as the production of woman. For any woman, even if she is impaired man, is bone from men's bones and flesh from men's flesh. For the man's semen intends to produce a man: but when a defect intervenes so that it is not healthy enough to make a whole man, it makes an impaired man, that is, a woman: hence the woman is bone of the intended bones of the man and flesh of the intended male flesh. However, it is said with the plural from the bones to signify that, although the flesh of the woman may be less perfect than that of the man, nevertheless her disposition is no less fleshly: but indeed so much the more, insofar as it is joined to less strength of body." But Pereira declares these things to be sheer nonsense and fictions of Cajetan because of the falseness and absurdity of the opinion from which they flowed, and also because their treatment is so obscure, confused, harsh, and and impetuous.
Question III. Whether the woman actively cooperates in the generation of the offspring
Response: Aristotle denies this in On the generation of animals, book 1, chaps. 19-20, relying mainly on the argument that she has no seed and does not contribute any to generation, as he argues in chap. 20. Those who followed Aristotle include Averroes, Albertus, Durandus, Paludanus, Capreolus, Herveus, Thomas, along with Cajetan on book 3, question 32, article 4 (of Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae). Among the more recent authors, Caspar Bartholinus in the controversial subjects of the Anatomical Institutes (1632) argues a middle opinion, that women indeed have seed but that it nevertheless does not actively cooperate in generation.' But, taking everything into account, the affirmative is to be held, both on account of the authority of scripture and on account of reason.
As for scripture
(1) It attributes generation to the woman through seed or "vim semi- narium." Leviticus 12:2: "If a woman has conceived seed [seminificaverit] and borne a male child, she shall be unclean for seven days. She shall be unclean according to the days of separation of her menstruation." Here seminification is clearly enough distinguished from giving birth and seed is distinguished from menstrual blood and its purification. Add to that Hebrews 11:11: "Sarah received strength to cast seed [eis katabolein spermatos].” (2) From the incarnation of Christ, for the Logos was made flesh, John 1:14. "Since the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature" (Hebrews 2:14). Therefore this occurred through generation and the seed of a woman, namely of the most holy virgin Mary, who gave birth to God and who conceived him in the uterus and bore him, so that he would be the fruit of her womb (Luke 1:31-32, 42), the fruit of the loins of David, according to the flesh (Acts 2:30), who in that respect is from the fathers (Romans 9:5) and consequently a a son of David, the son of Abraham, the son of Adam (Matthew 1:1 with Luke 3:38). And to that extent he is our brother, of one flesh with us (Acts 17:26 together with Hebrews 2:11-17). These things the scholastics should have considered first of all and should not have adhered to the authority of Aristotle, who errs gravely here. Therefore, more correctly, Scotus, Bonaventure, Ockham, Meyronnes, Bassolus, Biel, Lichetus, Major, having abandoned Aristotle, embraced the affirmative; and among the more recent writers who abandoned Aristotle and Thomas are the (Jesuit) commentators at the University of Coimbra treating Aristotle's On Generation and Corruption, chap. 4, question 27 although in the same work in a certain manner they work for the honor of Aristotle, Thomas, and their followers, saying that their opinion has great probability. Peter Wadding in his Treatise on the Incarnation says he is removing himself for the time from the truth of this question, whether medical or philosophical, but posits for the sake of argument what many of the more recent already hold, namely that women actively cooperate. Suarez, writing on Thomas, book 3, qu. 32, art. 4, removes himself from this dispute: "I do not think," he says, "that a commentary should be joined to this article. For if we were to discuss the many philosophic matters that D. Thomas touches on in it, they would require a long disputation rather removed from our purpose."
Arguments from reason for affirming the opinion are taken from the fields of physics and anatomy, from parts that are found in a woman, namely from the fields of physics and anatomy, from parts that are found in a woman, namely from the vessels preparing the seed, the genitals, the discharging vessels or those that carry the seed, and from their twofold direction, one of which is into the base of the uterus and the other of which is into the neck of the uterus. Concerning these things see Laurentius, or the anatomies of others after him.
