This article is a summary of Filipe Fontes’ lecture at the Interactive Faithful Youth Conference 2020.
Before addressing the issue, it is important to note that what will be discussed will be the gender ideology itself and not gender dysphoria (i. e. unease with the biological condition itself), it is important to clarify this to undo the mistake of imagining that the two things there are people defending one but not the other, but this does not change the fact that gender ideology is the most common ideology of those struggling to justify and naturalize homosexual practice. an objective character, with ideas and arguments that, contrary to sensations, can be analyzed with logical and empirical criteria. In this regard, three fundamental questions will be answered.
- First.
- What does gender ideology represent? To understand this.
- We need to know that contemporary researchers distinguish between the concepts of sex and gender.
- Which is not commonly done.
- Define sex as a biological dimension (nature.
- With only two sexes) and gender as the psychological and social dimension.
- That is.
- The self-misunderstanding of the individual and the way society expects him to behave.
This attempt to differentiate the terms is not a problem. The physical constitution, self-understanding and social expectations are different from each other and can be analyzed separately. The problems with this differentiation are: 1. The nomenclature used in the distinction. Words are never in vain, but how we express ourselves and interact with reality. Words have a history. ?Type? It is not a very appropriate term, because it has a strong connection with nature. 2. The way the distinction is interpreted and its consequences. Unconsciously, this distinction has been recognized throughout history, although it is not widely perceived. People have always been destined to understand and act like men or women, as they were born. If someone was uncomfortable with their biology, the historical understanding was to view it as a psychic dysfunction. What would be the solution? Adapt the psychological dimension to the biological dimension, which should govern the former. Gender ideology denies the need for this by declaring that gender is an absolutely gratuitous personal or social construction. But since we live in a created universe, in which it is impossible to live without hierarchy, the ideology of gender contradicts itself and prohibits the psychological dimension from ruling over others. She says that the problem is the body, so she wants the body to transform according to the psychological. It reverses the way that society has always understood the relationship between the biological plane and the psychological plane.
The second question is: does gender ideology hold up in the light of reason and practice? Three issues with gender ideology show that this is not the case, one of a theoretical nature and two practical. The theoretical problem is the impossibility of justifying the question of gender in relation to other subjective states. It is inconsistent to want to put some sensations before others. On the practical side, the first is the increase in the number of children and young people suffering from gender dysphoria where ideology has been assimilated. Ideology seems like a relief to people’s confusion, but what happened in countries like England and Scotland is the exact opposite. The number of children and youth struggling to understand their biological functions has increased dramatically, amplifying the suffering of many people. The second practical aspect is that gender ideology amplifies inequalities between men and women and places them in situations of unequal competition. However, gender ideology is presented as something that fights for equality, but this is not what happens in practice, especially in the world of sports. The examples are endless. Gender ideology does not support it and it does not support it in theoretical or practical terms.
Finally, what is the main problem of gender ideology in the light of the Christian perspective?The main one is a problem of worldview, that is, the structure through which we interpret reality. Gender ideology is imperfect in defining the origin of things, a source of distortions in reality, and proposing solutions to these problems. Gender ideology is the result of a mixture of non-Christian world visions: it brings together materialistic atheism to try to explain the origin of everything as well as the result of random physical-chemical processes, with the body being somewhat causal and not being able to determine who we are; brings romantic sentimentality, tries to explain distortions, placing ultimate comfort as the goal of our existence and conceiving the environment as the greatest obstacle to our realization; and to propose solutions, it uses the perspective of conflict, which suggests solution through confrontation and self-affirmation.
This belief that our satisfaction depends on the acceptance of our choices and behaviors leads followers of gender ideology to a strong social and political commitment to make it accepted in our culture, its logic is that there is no predefined meaning, that the problem is that others conspire against their disciples and that the solution is self-affirmation and self-imposition.
This logic is absolutely contrary to Christian logic: we were created by the Word of God (ex nihilo creation), so there is a prior and determined meaning of life; the great problem of humanity is the fall and sin, the breakdown of the relationship with the Creator, and from there come the distortions. Christianity assumes guilt and the need for repentance; and the solution of Christianity is that, because we return to this relationship through Christ, confusion is defeated. A proposal for conversion and growth in holiness.
That is why it is impossible to be Christian and defend gender ideology, because they are two things that have a completely different worldview on the most fundamental issues of life.