> ...Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia states, “This [gender] ideology leads to educational programs and legislative enactments that promote a personal identity and emotional intimacy radically separated from the biological difference between male and female. Consequently, human identity becomes the choice of the individual, one which can also change over time” ... Yet most transgender persons don’t experience their discordant gender identity as a choice, but as something given to them, at times something they experience with great distress.
As a concrete example, my children are taught at our local public school using the HRC's "Welcoming Schools" curriculum. As an apparent consequence of that, one of them has explained to a younger sibling something along the lines of, "You can choose whether to be a boy or girl." (I doubt that is what they were told in class, verbatim, but I'm assuming it does accurately reflect the gist.) The biological difference between male and female is downplayed: https://welcomingschools.org/resources/definitions-lgbtq-elementary-school I guess the idea is to remove the source of the "discord," but have the broader consequences of downplaying biological sex been thought through? I'm not entirely sure what to think about all this, except that I long for more nuanced discussion of it.
In any case, I'm in complete agreement that the Davenport Diocese’s consultative approach is a welcome shift.
Yes, there is definitely a theoretical perspective that would emphasize gender identity as something that is chosen, but that's why I think the Davenport guidelines' statement that "we are not dealing simply with ideologies or issues but with people" is important. I don't think that theoretical perspective reflects most people's perspectives.
Something I wrestled with as I wrote, though, is that even if at one level a transgender person's gender identity isn't chosen, they do choose to acknowledge it and appropriate a certain understanding of what it means, if that makes sense. So, there is some nuance. But that's not the same as saying children can choose to be a boy or girl. Thanks for your thoughts!
> ...Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia states, “This [gender] ideology leads to educational programs and legislative enactments that promote a personal identity and emotional intimacy radically separated from the biological difference between male and female. Consequently, human identity becomes the choice of the individual, one which can also change over time” ... Yet most transgender persons don’t experience their discordant gender identity as a choice, but as something given to them, at times something they experience with great distress.
Both these things can be true: 1) most transgender persons don't experience their discordant gender identity as a choice and 2) an increasingly prominent ideology conceives of gender identity as an individual choice. (cf. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/05/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-kathryn-bond-stockton.html?showTranscript=1 )
As a concrete example, my children are taught at our local public school using the HRC's "Welcoming Schools" curriculum. As an apparent consequence of that, one of them has explained to a younger sibling something along the lines of, "You can choose whether to be a boy or girl." (I doubt that is what they were told in class, verbatim, but I'm assuming it does accurately reflect the gist.) The biological difference between male and female is downplayed: https://welcomingschools.org/resources/definitions-lgbtq-elementary-school I guess the idea is to remove the source of the "discord," but have the broader consequences of downplaying biological sex been thought through? I'm not entirely sure what to think about all this, except that I long for more nuanced discussion of it.
In any case, I'm in complete agreement that the Davenport Diocese’s consultative approach is a welcome shift.
Yes, there is definitely a theoretical perspective that would emphasize gender identity as something that is chosen, but that's why I think the Davenport guidelines' statement that "we are not dealing simply with ideologies or issues but with people" is important. I don't think that theoretical perspective reflects most people's perspectives.
Something I wrestled with as I wrote, though, is that even if at one level a transgender person's gender identity isn't chosen, they do choose to acknowledge it and appropriate a certain understanding of what it means, if that makes sense. So, there is some nuance. But that's not the same as saying children can choose to be a boy or girl. Thanks for your thoughts!
Right, that makes sense to me. I appreciate your thoughtful response.