The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith released a declaration on human dignity yesterday. You can read it here if you like. You can read the Vatican News account of Cardinal Fernandez’ press conference here. If you like.
Since life is short and almost every day presents us with a new opportunity to mull over yet another statement of some sort or another from Rome, I’ve focused my comments on this document on what it says about gender ideology and sex change.
I wrote a bit about it at Catholic World Report.
Proponents of “gender” (reminder: it’s not an actual thing or identity) among the Catholics are predictably distressed. Their angle seems to be that the condemnation of gender ideology and sex change is first, scientifically backwards and secondly, not reflective of the “lived experiences” of the gender fluid and flexible.
Well, one thing on that last point: you might want to be careful in encouraging the world to just listen more to the fluid and flexible. In my experience, it’s when people start actually listening and paying attention to what’s going on that they peak, and hard.
So yes, by all means, listen – to Andrea Chu, to Judith Butler, to Roxanne Tickle. Let these people entertain you with their incoherence (Gender is real! Children need to have their puberty blocked so their bodies match their gender! It doesn’t matter what body parts I have! If I say I’m a woman, I am, even if I have a penis!) and enlighten you with their misogyny.
Well, back to the document. Yes, we all should be listening, paying attention and studying – to as much information as we can, from every angle. And then evaluating all of that in light of revelation and tradition.
As I say in the CWR piece, the slightly loose element in the new declaration and in church conversations about this in general is the question, rarely answered in a direct way, about what it means to “accept.” What it means to respect, to embrace another as a child of God with that God-given dignity.
In short, does the moral requirement of respecting another as being created in God’s image and with the attendant dignity mean accepting that person’s self-understanding (at the moment) as well?
For this is the implication of this corner of Christian activism. To be welcomed in the Body of Christ means that the Body of Christ must welcome you just as you are because this is the way God made you, and so on.
Now, that’s a matter for another discussion, and one which I have been wrestling with for years, and I am not kidding. It is not that I don’t know the answer, it’s that I want to articulate a history of how we got where we are today and to clarify what it todos, todos actually means.
Anyway.
As I said, the displeased-with-Dignitas crew maintains that to refuse to accept gender flexibility, fluidity and fun is an act of disrespect and a message to folks that God Does Not Love Them and They Are Not Welcome. There are, of course, a lot of problems with that position, but I’ll end with a quick point of comparison, one which I articulated on X this morning.
The very short version is: why is gender identity a thing which must be accepted as flexible and self-determined, but flexibility in terms of race, ethnicity, and age, for example are not?
(The declaration alludes to this idea, which is good, and I wish it had been more closely linked or repeated in the text closer to the gender paragraphs.)
If you can demand that I accept you, with your penis, as a woman, why can’t I demand to be viewed and treated as a 27-year old Malaysian?
This is not posed as a gotcha – it is a serious question demanding a serious, rational response. If a penis-laden man can be treated as a woman, why shouldn’t anyone be treated as anything they like in terms of any other aspect of identity? Why?
Last month, The New Yorker ran a very long piece on one of many academics and activists who have appropriated a racial or ethnic identity that…they do not actually have.
“Pretendians” is a nickname for those who appropriate Native or aboriginal identities. It’s a thorough and, I think, objective look at this case and what might motivate individuals to do this.
Almost 7000 words laying out the story, examining the issue, allowing various and conflicting voices to have their say.
My point is: in this piece, Hoover’s assertion about her identity is not taken for granted. It is, yes, questioned, and held up to critique. In addition, her assertion about her identity is presented as something that impacts, not just her, but others: other individuals, the tribes to which she claims to be connected to and the integrity of academic institutions.
In closely examining her claims and, yes – questioning her self-understanding and presentation – is the piece violating her human dignity?
I mean – if The New Yorker can ask questions…
Your first link is to the last ecumenical council’s declaration Dignitatis Humanae. It took me a couple of seconds to work that out. :-)
Agh! Thank you!