I am still thinking about all of this. And the Church has yet to weigh in on this specifically in a greatly substantial way. So I don't want to make any conclusive comments. But I do want to put something out there--an account of the thoughts that are currently swirling about in my head. This will help me to better organize those thoughts, and hopefully it will also help other people in their own journey in thinking through these things. And dialogue, comments, questions, or criticism are most welcome (as always)!
It seems to me that this paradigm shift is not really owing to any new discovery or any change in our objective knowledge of the world--such as some new scientific discovery. This is rather, fundamentally, a change in how we want to define things. Sometimes there are claims that "science" is behind this change. I have not done a thorough study of what is claimed scientifically. It seems to have something to do with discoveries about differences in the brains of transgendered people as opposed to non-transgendered people. But I don't think this is the real issue. Let's say, for example, that it turns out that the brains of biological males who want to be females or who "feel like" females seem actually to be different in some ways from the brains of males who don't. Perhaps there is some mental or psychological disposition to feel this way in some people, perhaps even rooted at least partly in the physiology of the brain. What would this mean? What it would mean would not be determined by the science itself. In all of human history, pretty much, until recently, a "man" has been defined in terms of biological anatomy--and specifically in terms of possessing the overall physiological characteristics associated with "maleness" and especially the orientation of the body towards being able to mate with females to produce offspring. There are all sorts of differences between specific males and females. They come in lots of different shapes, sizes, personalities, etc. But in the way we've looked at it in the past, no matter how different they are, if two individuals have male reproductive organs, or at least the internal programming toward the production of those organs, we've defined both individuals as "male". Why? Simply because that is what we have meant by the word "male". "Male" hasn't been defined in terms of how strong an individual is, how tall an individual is, how brawny an individual is, how much an individual likes trucks or fast cars or war or football or grunting or whatever else human males are supposed to like (by the way, I have no interest myself in anything in that list); it's been defined simply by whether or not the individual has a body biologically adapted towards playing the male role in the reproductive design of the human race. So whatever science has discovered about the different brains of different male individuals--that some are more interested in sex with women than others, that some are more affectionate than others, that some are less aggressive than others, that some like to play with dolls more than others, or whatever--even if these are at least partly rooted in the physiology of the brain, it wouldn't have made any difference to whether or not we would, in the past, have been inclined to label the individuals as "men". It is not the science that has produced this paradigm shift. It is a change in the way we have chosen to define "men" and "women". It is not a scientific change, but a cultural, ideological, and sociological change. (It also, by the way, seems odd to me how we are now using things like "he likes to play with dolls, he's more emotional, likes to hang out with women," etc., as evidence that a man is really a woman--whereas just a few years ago, anyone who suggested that real men don't play with dolls would have been called a gender bigot for stereotyping men. What before were considered foolish and prejudiced stereotypes seem now to be considered valid indicators that a biological man might actually be best classified, at least if he wants to be, as in actuality a woman.)
This means that neither method of labeling gender can be called right or wrong from a purely "scientific" point of view. How we judge these methods of labeling will depend rather on other aspects of our culture and our worldview. So I think the attempt by the new paradigm to portray this as a matter of scientific advance is misleading.
Our culture is increasingly Agnostic. Many of the battles of the "culture wars"--abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, etc.--are, to a great degree, fights between two worldviews about whose viewpoint will dominate the expressions, attitudes, beliefs, values, actions, and laws of our culture and our society. The two worldviews are Christianity--which has been dominant for a long time but which has been losing ground for some time, and losing ground very rapidly in recent times--and Agnosticism, which has been attempting to control American culture since the founding but has increased in success rapidly in recent times. It is impossible to consider transgenderism without considering which worldview-perspective we are coming from. As in many other areas, so in this area, the Agnostic point of view likes to try to pass itself off as the "neutral" side. (Just let that phrase, the "neutral side," sink in for a moment, and hopefully you will see the problem there. If you don't, you might check out some of these articles which show the impossibility of having any substantive ethics or laws without abandoning neutrality and embracing controverted points of view.)
Let's first look at transgenderism from an Agnostic point of view. In an Agnostic view, we only know facts in the sphere of the natural world that can be studied by science. We do not have objective knowledge about things beyond that, including answers to fundamental questions about the meaning of the universe. In these higher areas, we have beliefs but not facts. In this view, which is often allied with an Atheistic point of view (particularly when matters of science are involved), there is no "divine mandate" in terms of "male" and "female", or at least we do not know of any. Therefore, the way we define these kinds of things is ultimately up to us. In the past, we've used biological characteristics related to reproduction as the basis for our use of words like "male", "female", "man", "woman", etc., but now, for various reasons, lots of us have decided we'd rather connect these terms to more subjective aspects of how we think about ourselves--our choices of "personal identity". These latter, subjective considerations have become more important to us than the biological, reproductive aspects of ourselves in terms of how we want to use this kind of terminology. Is there anything wrong with that? Well, I suppose (assuming, again, for now, an Agnostic point of view) we can define things however we want. We made up language, after all, so we can use it as it best suits us. I do think, however, that even from this Agnostic point of view there is some confusion in this movement. I think a lot of people think that we've discovered something new, something scientific--as if people in the past were somehow objectively wrong in connecting "male" and "female" to biology and reproduction, and new discoveries have led us to realize--all of us except those backward, ignorant, bigoted fundamentalists anyway--that we ought to connect these terms instead to subjective aspects of our "personal identity". But, as I discussed earlier, this doesn't seem to be the case. It's not that we've discovered something new so much as that we have decided to alter how we use our words. In terms of scientific facts, it is all the same whether we say "Frank is a male who is kind of emotional and effeminate in some ways and likes to play with dolls and hang out with women" and "Francine produces sperm but is really a woman because she likes dolls, etc.". The difference here is not in how much "science" is taken into consideration but simply in how we've chosen to use words like "male". So I think that, from an Agnostic point of view, it would make sense to recognize more accurately what is really going on here and to admit that this is really a difference in how we've chosen to categorize things rather than a change of opinion rooted in some advance in scientific knowledge. (Though we could, of course, say with at least some plausibility that our decision to change our terminology and categorization has been influenced by advances in science which have helped us to better recognize the diversity that exists between even individuals of the same "biological sex", as well as to take more seriously the "outlier" cases, such as hermaphrodites and other people who have variations from the norm in terms of biological and anatomical sexual characteristics. Perhaps we didn't take this diversity as seriously in the past, and doing so now has led us to want to use our terms differently.)
But once we've clarified what is going here, that this is a change in categorization and definition fundamentally, is there anything wrong with Frank deciding to think of himself as Francine because she identifies more with "female" culture and viewpoint than with "male" culture and viewpoint? I suppose not. If it makes him/her happy, why not go with it? But, if we do switch our terminology here, we must recognize that we will still have to deal with the fact that the human race exists in a biologically binary way--that some people produce sperm and other people produce eggs and these are obviously designed to come together and reproduce. (Some may object to my saying the human race is "binary" this way. "What about asexual people, or hermaphrodites, etc.?" Well, of course, such cases exist, but it is obvious that none of these sorts of cases constitute any sort of third fundamental form of human existence. Human biology is "designed" to be biologically, anatomically and reproductively male and female. These other cases are, in relation to this "design", instances of persons exhibiting a "defect" in this area, just as people who are born without an arm are experiencing a "defect" from the ordinary, genetic "design" of human individuals. To say these are "defective" conditions is of course not to pass judgment on them or the persons in them, but simply to point out the obvious fact that there is such a thing as "normal" biological development in humans and variations from that norm. So these kinds of variations from the sexual norm do not alter the basic, objective binary nature of human sexuality.) So what are we going to do with this obvious, objective fact about human beings? We deal with aspects of our reality by labeling them. In the past, we've used terms like "male" and "female" to account for the binary sexual nature of humanity. A transgender vocabulary will have to come up with new terms to talk about this. A question that occurs to me at this point is this: Why go through all the bother of redefining our terms here? Why doesn't Frank just say that he's a male who likes dolls, likes to hang out with women, etc., instead of trying to redefine substantial aspects of the received English language (and other languages)? Is this really an advantage, or does it simply create confusion? "Well, if Frank gets to call himself/herself Francine, then he/she can go to the 'girls'' restroom, and he/she feels more comfortable there." OK, well, if this is really such a great concern for a lot of people, then why not simply change the requirements for who can go into which restrooms rather than changing the entire English language? Why not just allow men and women to go into the same restroom? "But then people who think like men might go into a restroom for people who think like women!" Well, how are you going to prevent that by allowing people to define themselves "male" or "female" on their own terms? You have the same risk either way. I see nothing substantial gained, except more confusion. But, hey, whatever, we're Agnostics, right? We can do whatever we want, right? There's no objective moral law that we can know about, right? So if enough of us think this is all worth fundamentally altering our language for, then why not do it, right? Well, sure, I guess. I look forward to seeing what we come up with to refer to what used to be categorized under "male" and "female". Perhaps we can adopt completely new words. We can call what used to be called "males" "gazorks" and we can call what used to be called "females" "zagorks". So long as we don't start making restrooms labeled "gazorks" and "zagorks" . . .
OK, so that's the Agnostic view. But what about a Christian point of view? What about a Catholic point of view (which I care about, since I'm Catholic)? Here, I think, we have all the previous considerations with some added ones. Particularly, we have to deal with the fact that the distinction between "male" and "female" is something created by God as a central component of human nature and that it has implications for how we are to live. God designed human beings male and female, with the intention that they would come together in marriages and reproduce. And Catholic doctrine uses "male" and "female" in the old, classic way, referring not to subjective psychological characteristics but to biological and anatomical characteristics related to reproduction. Catholic doctrine says that God made humans "male" and "female". He designed these to be complementary to each other. He designed males and females to marry each other--that is, to join together into formal unions in which there will be a special relationship of love and care which will form the basis for a family unit often involving children produced through the biological act of sex. Catholic doctrine affirms that "marriage" must be between a "man" and a "woman", not arbitrarily but because this is fundamental to what marriage is all about. It is essentially oriented towards not just friendship, closeness, or bodily pleasure, but towards a special male-female relationship and biological reproduction. Those things aren't just things some married couples just happen to do; they are essential to the purpose and nature of marriage. (This is not to say that infertile couples don't have a real marriage, but simply that infertility in such cases constitutes a deviation from the standard ideal, just as not having an arm constitutes a deviation from the standard ideal of human form which involves two arms. This is not to say there is something shameful or immoral about being infertile or not having an arm; it is simply to recognize these things as deviations from a recognized norm. Deviations happen, it's not a problem, but it would be wrong to refuse to acknowledge them for what they are and pretend that they are not deviations.) So Catholic doctrine condemns homosexual sexual activity as well as "same-sex marriage". Homosexual sexual activity is a misuse of sexuality, which is supposed to occur in a relationship oriented naturally towards reproduction (and then a stable family structure in which the children are raised). The thing that is wrong with "same-sex marriage" is simply that it isn't marriage, because it is a deliberate attempt to redefine its essence (as opposed to something like involuntary infertility, where there is no intention to redefine marriage but simply the presence of an involuntary non-ideal circumstance). There are other ways in which men and women complement each other as well. One often-observed feature of Catholic sacramentality, of course, is that women can't be priests. Whatever else this shows, it shows that God takes seriously male-female complementarity and intends for such complementarity to have a practical bearing in various aspects of human life.
So Catholic theology is going to have to insist on refusing to blur the distinction between male and female, or a redefining of the substance of God-ordained aspects of human existence such as "male", "female", and "marriage". So what if Frank wants to identify himself/herself as Francine? Well, it would seem that Catholic theology will have to say that Frank is still Frank in terms of Catholic ontological, moral, and theological definitions. In Catholic language, he is still "male". If he gets married (in a version of "marriage" recognized by the Church), he will have to marry what would in Catholic language be called a "woman". And he will, in terms of his gender at least, be in principle eligible for the priesthood. (Perhaps I'm wrong here, and the Church will be able to accommodate looking at "male" and "female" in a way more compatible with transgender philosophy. But if this is so, I don't yet see how, nor do I see any basis for affirming it.) All of this would appear to put Catholics on a collision course with transgender culture. Are there any ways Catholics and transgenderists could accommodate each other? Perhaps. Consider same-sex marriage. In the US at this time, "same-sex marriage" is legal. But what is "marriage" as defined by the US government? Is this really the same institution that the Church calls "marriage"? Could part of the controversy here be avoided if the US government and the Church were to agree that they are talking about two different things? We could talk about "civil marriage" as a thing essentially distinct from "Catholic marriage". Then the US government could define "civil marriage" however they want and their definition wouldn't come into conflict with the Catholic definition of marriage because they would not intend to be addressing that. Now, I'm not saying this would solve all controversy. After all, in Catholic thinking, all human societies have an obligation to think and act and govern in ways consistent with "the truth about God and man," so a society that chooses to think and act as if Catholicism is not true is going to be on a fundamentally wrong course from a Catholic point of view (and the Agnostics would have to say the same about us). But at least a more Agnostic state and the Catholic Church could define terms in such a way as to avoid entangling themselves more than necessary in each others' domains. So Catholics could say that marriage is between a man and a woman, while "civil marriage" (an institution fundamentally different from marriage, invented by the US government) isn't necessarily. Could something like this help when Catholics try to relate to individuals like Frank/Francine? Could a Catholic agree to use the name Francine instead of Frank, and to acknowledge that Francine is a girl and not a boy using those terms in a "transgenderist" definition, while he is a boy and not a girl in a Catholic definition? Then he could say that Francine is both a girl and a boy in different senses. This might get confusing. There might be situations in public discourse and interaction where problems will still arise. But it's at least worth thinking about as one way of trying to figure out how different sorts of people might try to live side by side in the same society. I think it would suggest a pretty encouraging level of interpersonal respect if people in the "transgenderist" camp would even consider being careful to define their own use of terms in such a way as to try to avoid giving the impression that they are imposing their terminology and meanings on Catholics and Catholic culture, and vice versa, if George the Catholic and Francine the "transgender girl" were to say to each other, "OK, we both recognize that, using 'transgenderist' terminology and categorizations, Francine is a girl, while, using Catholic terminology and categorizations, Francine is a boy." George can go on and point out that he thinks that Francine really ought to think like a Catholic, since Catholicism is actually true, and Francine might argue that his/her own viewpoint is actually true and should therefore be adopted, and all of this might be done in a way of civil discourse and dialogue. Could Francine actually be a Catholic? Well, if Francine is actually a boy in terms of reproductive biology and anatomy, then it is hard for me to see how, as a Catholic, he could be or feel justified in using the "transgenderist" language in reference to himself as a matter of his own personal choice, for how could he do this without contradicting his self-identification as a Catholic, which, if consistent, must involve viewing the world according to Catholic doctrine and so looking at gender, marriage, etc., the way the Church does? And how could one do that and also look at things in a "transgenderist" sort of way? But perhaps there are further nuances here that could be considered.
Of course, we still have the cases of people who are of mixed or questionable sexual biology. What do we do with these? Well, this will have to be determined as I presume it always has been--on a case-by-case basis. Could there be people in the world who really aren't either male or female, looking at things from a Catholic point of view? Or perhaps we should look at it first from a biological point of view. Are there people who are absolutely sexless, or so sexually out of the ordinary that a biological sex could not be objectively assigned? If so, what do we do with such people? I don't know. Perhaps in some cases this would be a matter of judgment that would have to be decided by various parties concerned in the affair. But these will always remain outlier cases. These do not constitute the vast majority of the human race, nor are they really the focus of what the transgender movement is all about. Whatever we say with regard to such outlier cases, we can follow the principles laid out above when thinking about the vast majority of human individuals who are in a clear way biologically and anatomically male or female in the classic sense.
I should add a couple more comments before I close about some other concerns I have with the transgender movement. One of them is the extremely intense, close-minded, intolerant way in which it seems to me advocates of "transgenderism" have tended to discuss and promote their ideas. Rather than presenting these ideas as possibilities worth considering, or even as positions held to be discussed in civil dialogue with others, the proponents of these ideas seem mostly to have taken a route of insisting that everyone immediately agree with them or be labeled an ignorant, intolerant bigot. They've tried to get the law to agree with them from day one, insisting basically on zero tolerance for anyone who would dare to disagree. They've created a climate of--dare I say it?--hate towards people who disagree with them or would even dare to express the slightest bit of skepticism or questioning of their position or even just ask questions about it to consider it further. They've claimed that their position is supported by science so clearly that the only possible motive for even wondering about aspects of their position--instead of immediately wholeheartedly and enthusiastically embracing them--must be hatred and prejudice. They've created a cultural climate in which all honest and careful discussion and dialogue is shut down and nothing is acceptable except loud, wholehearted cries of "Amen!" I think this is a terrible attitude with which to approach a new, controversial idea like this one, and it shows a terrible lack of respect for the humanity of those who aren't gung-ho for everything they want everyone to think. Our whole culture lately seems to be more and more polarized around ideological groups who have no interest in serious, respectful dialogue with each other, but only in insisting they are right and only evil bigots would disagree with them and limiting conversation to demands for immediate and total submission from everyone to their whole platform. The intolerance of the transgenderism movement is just one example of this general cultural trend. I find this tendency towards dehumanizing polarization to be a great danger to our society, as it can only lead to hatred, division, and conflict where there is a desperate need for compassion, dialogue, and self-reflection across all ideological boundaries. In this increasingly pluralistic culture, there is a desperate need for all of us to learn how to listen to each other and take each other seriously as fellow human beings, and I think we are doing in general a terrible job of this right now. Now, I'm not saying that the opponents of the transgender movement have evidenced a better tendency towards listening and taking seriously the opposing point of view or its proponents. I haven't noticed much of this on either side. In general in our culture, the tendency towards bigoted intolerance of other people and their points of view seems to be rather evenly spread among all the ideological camps. I think there is a serious need for this to change.
The other concern I want to mention is the tendency of the promoters of transgenderism to insist that their ideas be put into practice in frightening ways, particularly with regard to children. I've heard people insisting that young children and teenagers ought to be allowed to undergo physical surgeries to bring their anatomy as much as possible into conformity with their "self-identified" genders. I've even heard of threats made that parents who would refuse to allow their children to undergo such operations might be judged to be bad parents under the law and forced to comply, maybe even have their children taken away, etc. I hope this kind of absurdity and, I want to say, barbarity is only coming from a minority of people. From what I understand, we don't know nearly enough about this or have enough evidence that this has any objective basis in reality to allow children to undergo such drastic surgeries that will alter the rest of their lives. Nor is any respect shown to parents who might see things differently (considering that much of this comes down not to any objective science but to redefinitions of things based to a great degree on particular ideologies), or any deference shown to the respect owed to parents as those immediately and chiefly in charge of the raising of their children. It just seems like our whole culture has gone crazy--jumping so quickly from a view that has been pretty much the only view held in all of human history to another new idea that has come nearly out of nowhere, and then immediately insisting that everyone has to agree with it OR ELSE and making dramatic and fundamentally life-altering decisions about children and surgery on the basis of it and even contemplating forcing parents who disagree to go along with such decisions. In light of things like this, I'm finding it increasingly frightening to live in our society. Where is all this going to end? Of all times in human history, especially now we need some serious self-reflection, compassion, and dialogue among all of us.
Well, that's enough for now. As I said, these are just some thoughts, not intended to be conclusive. Perhaps they can help further discussion of the complexity of these issues.
ADDENDUM 6/28/19: I've just written up a dialogue on the subject of sexuality and gender which you can find here. Last week (or two weeks ago--time goes by so quickly these days!), the Congregation for Catholic Education, a department of the Vatican curia, put out a statement about transgenderism, which you can find here. And Dr. Bryan Cross, a Catholic philosopher, just put out a very helpful article on this subject here.
ADDENDUM 1/19/22: Here is a very helpful piece from the USCCB (the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) where they have put together quotations which express the Church's teaching on these issues.
ADDENDUM 7/15/24: Last April, the Church published a document which includes within it a brief summary of the Church's current teaching on transgender-related issues (it's a small part of a larger, broader document on human dignity). You can find it here.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment