I've also struggled with what to do with pronouns and other-gender names. Luckily I've not had to face this in my work life. If my kids' Catholic high school, a kid wanted their other-gender name to be in a program but that was refused as it was clearly a name not for their true gender. what a difficult situation we often find ourselves in, trying to be both charitable and strong in our faith.
"Matrimony" is Latin for "motherhood". The equivalent for "fatherhood" is "patrimony". Matrimony is a project that some women take on, to birth and care for children. Patrimony is the project that some men take on, to surround a mother and children with a house and property.
This is not a fundamentalist collapse. It is the ideal. Can a woman work to build a patrimony while her husband mothers the children? Yes, but it is not a unique expression of their gender. It is a compromise with practical realities, or even a desire to deny the ideal.
It is the ideal that holds society together. A man who wants to provide and protect a mother and their children, and a woman who wants to mother children. A person, man or woman, need not embrace ideal matrimony. There are many other vocations that people can fulfill without demanding a personalized form of matrimony.
Our current culture is like actors who want particular parts in a play but then want to change the lines. Each person does not have to reinvent culture so that they can be unique.
I'm grateful to the interviewees for pegging pronouns as the big practical issue. A person who is not willing to accept a "hard disconnect" between (biological) sex and (social) gender cannot, with integrity, use pronouns in a way that manifestly creates/reinforces such a disconnect.
I'm also grateful that they emphasize the pressing need for a positive vision of how human nature works in this area. The reason that a "hard disconnect" is unacceptable--indeed, incoherent--is because biological sex is prior to and more important (in a general sense) than social gender. The whole point of gender is to be a social expression of the biological reality of maleness and femaleness. The details of that expression certainly can vary, perhaps a lot, with time and place. But if it becomes completely detached from biological sex, then it doesn't mean anything at all anymore.
I appreciate the clarity and nuanced thinking of Drs. Favale and Grabowski on this topic. For example, recognizing the strong and unseverable connection between biological sex and its expression through gender, and the wide degree of cultural variation that can accommodate while still being tied to reality. I'm also glad to see others share my conviction that the trans movement is highly linguistically focused, and thus that using pronouns which don't accord with reality is a problem. I thought Dr. Favale's approach to pronouns vs. names was interesting; I figure that to use a trans person's preferred name would also amount to linguistically affirming their false reality, eg, referring to the athlete formerly known as Bruce Jenner as "Caitlyn." On the other hand, because the name itself is not so directly tied to gender identification as pronouns (at least in English), it may be better to use a person's preferred name out of politeness, except where prudential considerations demand otherwise (like the example of parents with children).
I find the Church’s viewpoint on this issue is either very easy or very difficult for people to deal with, and generally, it’s very difficult for everyone to handle it with charity. Props to the good Drs. for doing so, far more so than I generally see on Catholic sites.
I do know a lot of people with some sort of neuro or sexual developmental disorder. This is probably somewhat due to self-sorting, as I’m autistic myself, but it still seems increasingly common in the 30 and younger cohort. This is a complicating factor: by definition, we seem to differ from the norms of God’s plan.
What can we say to young people who come to the Theology of the Body with open minds, but find themselves strangers to the nature that should be proper to them? ‘You have a fundamental disorder, and that is your cross to bear’, maybe; I would be happy to hear that much, if it were true. From "our side", I hear much more often the gender-role fundamentalism mentioned by Dr. Grabowski, without any thought for those tempted to believe that if they struggle with the stereotypes of their sex, then they must not belong to it at all.
Anyway, thank you for these interviews. I really appreciate hearing from a perspective that mentions individual variation. I’ve added Edith Stein’s ‘Essays on Woman’ to my reading list in the hopes of clarifying what constitutes legitimate diversity in the feminine nature.
I've also struggled with what to do with pronouns and other-gender names. Luckily I've not had to face this in my work life. If my kids' Catholic high school, a kid wanted their other-gender name to be in a program but that was refused as it was clearly a name not for their true gender. what a difficult situation we often find ourselves in, trying to be both charitable and strong in our faith.
"Matrimony" is Latin for "motherhood". The equivalent for "fatherhood" is "patrimony". Matrimony is a project that some women take on, to birth and care for children. Patrimony is the project that some men take on, to surround a mother and children with a house and property.
This is not a fundamentalist collapse. It is the ideal. Can a woman work to build a patrimony while her husband mothers the children? Yes, but it is not a unique expression of their gender. It is a compromise with practical realities, or even a desire to deny the ideal.
It is the ideal that holds society together. A man who wants to provide and protect a mother and their children, and a woman who wants to mother children. A person, man or woman, need not embrace ideal matrimony. There are many other vocations that people can fulfill without demanding a personalized form of matrimony.
Our current culture is like actors who want particular parts in a play but then want to change the lines. Each person does not have to reinvent culture so that they can be unique.
I'm grateful to the interviewees for pegging pronouns as the big practical issue. A person who is not willing to accept a "hard disconnect" between (biological) sex and (social) gender cannot, with integrity, use pronouns in a way that manifestly creates/reinforces such a disconnect.
I'm also grateful that they emphasize the pressing need for a positive vision of how human nature works in this area. The reason that a "hard disconnect" is unacceptable--indeed, incoherent--is because biological sex is prior to and more important (in a general sense) than social gender. The whole point of gender is to be a social expression of the biological reality of maleness and femaleness. The details of that expression certainly can vary, perhaps a lot, with time and place. But if it becomes completely detached from biological sex, then it doesn't mean anything at all anymore.
I appreciate the clarity and nuanced thinking of Drs. Favale and Grabowski on this topic. For example, recognizing the strong and unseverable connection between biological sex and its expression through gender, and the wide degree of cultural variation that can accommodate while still being tied to reality. I'm also glad to see others share my conviction that the trans movement is highly linguistically focused, and thus that using pronouns which don't accord with reality is a problem. I thought Dr. Favale's approach to pronouns vs. names was interesting; I figure that to use a trans person's preferred name would also amount to linguistically affirming their false reality, eg, referring to the athlete formerly known as Bruce Jenner as "Caitlyn." On the other hand, because the name itself is not so directly tied to gender identification as pronouns (at least in English), it may be better to use a person's preferred name out of politeness, except where prudential considerations demand otherwise (like the example of parents with children).
I find the Church’s viewpoint on this issue is either very easy or very difficult for people to deal with, and generally, it’s very difficult for everyone to handle it with charity. Props to the good Drs. for doing so, far more so than I generally see on Catholic sites.
I do know a lot of people with some sort of neuro or sexual developmental disorder. This is probably somewhat due to self-sorting, as I’m autistic myself, but it still seems increasingly common in the 30 and younger cohort. This is a complicating factor: by definition, we seem to differ from the norms of God’s plan.
What can we say to young people who come to the Theology of the Body with open minds, but find themselves strangers to the nature that should be proper to them? ‘You have a fundamental disorder, and that is your cross to bear’, maybe; I would be happy to hear that much, if it were true. From "our side", I hear much more often the gender-role fundamentalism mentioned by Dr. Grabowski, without any thought for those tempted to believe that if they struggle with the stereotypes of their sex, then they must not belong to it at all.
Anyway, thank you for these interviews. I really appreciate hearing from a perspective that mentions individual variation. I’ve added Edith Stein’s ‘Essays on Woman’ to my reading list in the hopes of clarifying what constitutes legitimate diversity in the feminine nature.