Article: "The Dead End of Gender Theory."

We hear of this on the news, but what is it? What does gender theory do? This attempt to eradicate the reality of the sexes has enormous and unfortunate public policy consequences, this article says.

I don’t see how you are going to change the fact that women are the ones who bear the children.

The article gives an answer to your question.

Elevating the difficulties that some persons face in being comfortable with their evident sex to such a level that it leads to a “theory about gender” (cf. sex) could be seen to be an attempt to present such situations as something other than a complex medical condition.

But regardless of how the predicament of the individual is viewed, how they are to be helped, supported and (potentially) accommodated is not easily answered.

Well, certainly it would be a curious if one’s mother could be regarded by the state as Male.

I read an article on Yahoo today by some supporter of gender theory who was writing about her daughter. The first sentence of the article was, “When my daughter was born, the hospital assigned her the gender of female.”

These modern ideas that one can choose one’s gender based on feelings or mental conditions are downright ludicrous, and destructive towards the family unit in the long-run. Thanks for the article.

These radically regressive ideas are attempts to remake society. For various reasons, some people feel the need to go against reality itself and remold man and woman into something they are not.

The human race would no longer being connected. It would be a human race of the I. Only I am I. Yes, different people are different, but the fundamental natures of man and woman will never change. What is being proposed is not reality, and it is certainly against reality. Acts of anarchy cannot change anything for the better.


The problem is reflected in the language itself.

In gender, we are speaking of an existential human trait, or characteristic.
To include the word “theory” in regard to such an integral aspect of human nature degrades humanity.

A human being is an integrated person, not a theory.
Theories are debated, subject to individual opinions and ideas, and accepted or discarded.
Human beings deserve much better than that.

Theories are not subject to individual opinions, if we are talking about Scientific theories.
Also, how does a person deserve “better” than being subject to individual opinions? What is “better”? Being ignored? Being told you are freak?
The fact that many people have disorders does not mean that we should ignore their callings… sin touches us all.

God bless,

This frightens me just a little.
How about this for better:
being recognized as a human being with innate dignity, in the image of God.

What is “better”? Being ignored? Being told you are freak?
The fact that many people have disorders does not mean that we should ignore their callings… sin touches us all.

God bless,

So you think the opposite of being subject to opinion is to be ignored or be called a freak? :shrug:
That is simply the ugly side of opinion.

I was asking a serious question. Just because you think science is wrong doesn’t mean you know everything…
How can you differentiate “being subject to individual opinions” from “being recognized as a human being…”?

Never said it was the opposite, I was making suggestions of what other things could be…
Not everything in the world is characterized as opposites…
Or do you believe that is so Manichaeistic?

God bless,

I have disorders. I take it all a day at a time.

Gender is not a theory. It’s another attempt to alter reality. Take Facebook, they are engaged in a social engineering experiment that is based, not on science, but the need for some to destroy the fundamental person and remold them. This is classic Psychological Warfare.

I urge everyone to recognize this for what it is.


What science are you referring too? No one denies some people suffer some conditions that leave them with great discomfort about their sex / sexuality.

The scientific method that defines a theory as a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

God bless,

But what specific piece of science were your referring to - what piece of science is it that you say the other poster says is “wrong”?

This is a serious issue for a professing Christian (or anyone else for that matter).
Let me suggest the catechism section on “the dignity of the human person”.


1700 The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God


1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:

What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.35
1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.36 If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

Humanity as a subject of human opinion is in no way compatible with the transcendent dignity of a person.

It’s not explicit in his answer, but I would infer it is sociology/psychology.

I know this is a serious issue… but talking about “the dignity of the human person” doesn’t address the question. How are these people supposed to distinguish your “dignity” intentions from the scientific “opinions” that they are currently being subjected to?

Do you also think it is abominable to use Cell Theory language when talking about the human body?

God bless,

At the turn of the century 100 years ago, the big thing was the supernatural.
Everyone was taking ‘ghost’ photos, taking part in seances, etc.
And they all thought science was behind them.

I suspect 100 years from now the current experiment will be just as antiquated.

How are people supposed to distinguish between falsehood and truth regarding human dignity?
By opening their eyes and looking, and using reason.
Human dignity is not an intention or opinion, it is an objective value.
When human dignity is subject to opinion the results are always and everywhere tragic.

For instance, one opinion goes like this:
“In my opinion a black person is less than fully human, their intellectual capacities are less than those of white people, and so they should be enslaved to a superior population of humans”.

Another opinion goes like this:
“The hungry person has not succeeded in providing for himself and his family, and so due to his lack of ability, he should be left to fend for himself, even if that means starvation. We should not help him, because that would be enabling of an inferior person”:

Can you compare/contrast those opinions with the quotes from the catechism on the objective value of a human being? (by objective value, we mean the human being is not a subject of opinion, but has an intrinsic value as a being himself).

You were the one making inferences! And now you’re unable to identify them.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit