There has been an interesting development on the subject of gender theory or gender identity since my post of August 4th. An article appeared in Crux reporting on Pope Francis' recent meeting with Polish bishops during World Youth Day.  The article claims scientific support for Pope Francis' position on gender theory or gender identity and cites recent published statements by the American College of Pediatricians in evidence.

Here is a link to the article: https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2016/08/09/pediatricians-back-pope-francis-gender-theory/

At first flush this appears to be good science and good reporting. Upon a closer look, a very different assessment can be made. The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) is estimated to have between 60 and 200 members and according to one of its founding members adheres to "traditional Judeo-Christian values" (Wikipedia). The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) with a membership of 64,000 members (Wikipedia) has published several position papers on human sexuality and sexual development with significant differences with the ACP. Several of the AAP positions are nuanced with an eye towards the developmental nature of human knowledge and therefore do not include definitive, closed-to-further-discussion claims of authority. The AAP makes such statements as: gender identity is "likely both biological and social," "All children need the opportunity to explore different gender roles..." For the science to guide me in my work, I will go with the more inclusive body, whose findings are consistent with in the much larger medical and science communities.

It is estimated that 1 in 2,000 children are born with genitals that are not clearly male or female, i.e. identifiable as male or female (AAP's website). Let's extrapolate the numbers. With approximately 4,000,000 live births each year in the U.S., that means there are approximately 2,000 children born each year who may be described as intersex. With a life expectancy of almost 80 years, there are some 160,000 intersex persons within the U.S. population at any one time. Despite claims to the contrary, the binary chromosomal classification of XX and XY does not encompass the full universe of human persons. The continua of hormonal levels and other identifiable sexual characteristics within the male population and the female population and the overlap of these continua need to be addressed in theory and practice as well. Sexual orientation provides additional material to be accounted for in theory and practice. What is the final accounting of the percentage of the U.S. population which does not fit into the strict binary definition proposed by the ACP? I don't know. But it certainly is significant, in my judgment, both in terms of the sheer numbers of folks, as well as in the individual right to a fullness of life.

It seem as if there are those among us who wish to return to a previous time and place, where those individuals, who did not fit into a binary heterosexual view of human persons, were considered freaks of nature whether or not a more euphemistic term was employed. The effort to resist such a retreat or even to refuse to settle for the status quo is a fight worth waging.

In closing, I have a word of advice for Thomas D. Williams, the author of the Crux article: do your homework. The American College of Pediatricians has been identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Mr. Williams may not agree with this designation; it is of such significance, it merits comment when he presents the ACP as a source and resource. The failure to take five minutes to check one's sources might mean that someday an excommunicated Holocaust denying bishop could be welcomed back into the Church. Wait a minute! We have already been there.

For sometime now I have been trying to compose a posting on the subject of gender theory. It is time to try and to keep it brief.

There are those who hold to a strict binary view of human sexuality, that is, heterosexual males and heterosexual females. My personal and professional experience is that the binary view fails to take into account much of genuine human experience both on the individual level and within the context of a social cultural community. One may not agree with the behavioral choices made by another person, society or culture, but one cannot always dispute the sincerity of the other and the functionality of those choices often over millennia.

The charge of ideological colonization is made against those who offer a gender theory different from the strict binary view. Is it not also ideological colonization when one insists that his/her conceptualization of human nature and sexuality is contextually free, cultural universal, and permanently valid and that a single set of such concepts is the pinnacle of human perfection and intelligence? That insistence is then followed by employing or attempting to employ any number of authorities and mechanisms to insure that one interpretation of what it is to be human delegitimizes all others.