Certainly possible, and happening to some extent already. The question is what for?
From what is described in the article, this looks like “Can we politize Buddhism even more?”, which is certainly damaging to it. From the definition: “Praxis is correctly understood as the critical relationship between theory and practice whereby each is dialectically influenced and transformed by the other” - we can clearly infer “change through societal processes”. Why is this not good, one may ask?
SN20.7:
Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called ‘Summoner.’ Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner’s original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained.
While in the sutta context it concerns literary works vs. suttas themselves, the process is the same. Buddhist teaching and practice influenced by and transformed by saṃsāric processes will lead to its further degradation and quicker disapperance. This is happening anyway, by the way, especially now, in the era of globalization and rapid information exchange. Those two things are like a double-edged sword, or as we say “stick with two ends”. One one hand these two things allowed more people to learn Dhamma, on the other - exposed it to external influnces more.
I would like to show this on the example of the work reviewed in the article, which is Rita Gross’ work.
Although it was published over two decades ago, Rita Gross’s Buddhism after Patriarchy, I argue, remains the model of a fruitful critique of Buddhism in the service of its transformation. Gross dissects the androcentric bias in traditional Buddhist stories, beginning with Gautama’s abandonment of his wife and child but she also unburies a few classic non-androcentric texts.
Amazing. So Buddha going forth abandoning the life’s burdens is androcentric. This is waht happens when you’re so involved in your fight you see enemy spies in every bush.
Gross concludes that the majority opinion across traditions is that there is some problem with female birth. Yet the minority opinion that gender is irrelevant to practice is the one most consistent with core Buddhist teachings.
How about realizing that these are not two separate opinions, but a single solid one? Being born as a woman is considered worse kammic result than being born a man, and this is clearly so, especially in old times. What is better, to be born poor or rich? No need to discussion here. Who of them is more able to achieve Liberation because of this characteristic? None, both are equal. Same story with genders/sexes.
But a person does not understand the teaching, is triggered and publishes a work demanding changes to suit her own worldview.
The teachings of emptiness and dependent co-arising express an emancipatory potential. We are not locked into fixed gender roles (173-185).
Just in the same way I have encountered so many “proofs” that Buddha, apart from being a feminist, has been a communist, marxist, capitalist, etatist… Choose what you like.
All this stuff has nothing to do with the Teaching, when brought into and/or associated with it ,it is damaging to Dhamma because of unnecessary reinterpretations and pressure for change to suit the zeitgeist. Imagine this happens over several centuries, every century with its zeitgeist. After that, no Dhamma is left, because it has been reinterpreted and rewritten several times over.
If social processes are allowed to freely alter the Teaching, the Teaching is over. It is supposed to be supramundane, detached from everyday chores, a path to escape, not to engage even more.