Article: "The Dead End of Gender Theory."

In the days of old saying some-one did not know if they were Arthur or Martha meant they had a problem. Now it seems we are the ones with the problem. I am not sure what the secularists will think of next. Once they win this battle they will have another demand. I am sure the polyamorists and sado masochists are all waiting in the wings.
Heaven help us

No need to worry.

All this “modern progressive” nonsense has a way of sorting itself out.
In time the system collapses under the weight of it’s own insanity.

There is certainly need to worry when lies gain acceptance and power.
They don’t need the label of progressive, conservative, leftist, rightist, or any other label to be dangerous. Lies are dangerous period, especially when the lie is about human nature.

Before the lies collapse many people will be hurt. I hope it is not so, but history says otherwise.

I did identify them…
did you read my post? Sociology / Psychology.

Clem… you are being overtly abstract about this… I asked for concrete ways…

You still have not addressed the question…
Do you think that because a scientist formulated GenderTheory that he/she or anyone interested in it has no respect for other humans? Or is it because they are interested in human behavior and want to understand how it is better to help?

Just because a conclusion is wrong does not mean the scientific method is wrong.
If you want, you can bring your own arguments to the table, but just saying that other people’s work is “opinions” with no real alternative advances nothing.

I could ask you as well the same thing, given that there are probably over 10 homeless people in your state, why aren’t you respecting their dignity by buying them food instead of paying for internet? Making broad brushes of assumption goes both ways…

God bless,

We are way off track here.
This is your post that I responded to:

The bolded is what I addressed.
The catechism I pasted addresses the basis for human dignity, which has absolutely nothing to do with opinion.
(I dislike that overused word "absolutely, but it is very appropriate in this instance. )

Really, I have no idea what you are trying to justify.

Just keep exposing them to the light of the truth.


The keyword is “how”.
I am not trying to justify anything. My question was genuine curiosity. Criticizing without adding to the conversation is less than helpful.
This is my understanding of the whole conversation:
1-Humans are complex creatures. Someone tried to devise of an explanation to how they operate / identify themselves through use of the scientific method and called it Gender Theory.
2-You criticize the use of the word “Theory” towards humans. And say “Humans deserve better”
3-I grow enraged because the word is being correctly used but incorrectly misinterpreted by you to what seems to be “just someone’s opinion” and because “Humans deserve better” is such a facile argument to say about anything.
4-I ask you to elaborate on your argument.
5-I get nothing but scorn because of the wording of my question.


God bless,

I seriously cannot follow your train of thought.
You are upset because you say you “get nothing” after I posted you the catechism on what human dignity is. That is nothing I guess…

This is the whole point, to which you objected:
Human dignity is not based on theories and opinions.
And now I have no idea where you are.

Can you simply comment on the what the catechism says? That way you don’t have to be frustrated with me.

I find the use of the concept of the “scientific method” being applied to social sciences to be somewhat . . . ahhhh . . . . shall we say . . . “debatable”.

"Social science, which is generally regarded as including psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics and political science, consists of the disciplined and systematic study of society and its institutions, and of how and why people behave as they do, both as individuals and in groups within society. At a minimum it would appear that to be “scientific” entails a systematic and disciplined method of acquiring knowledge, and that knowledge must be verifiable knowledge.

So, we enter a problem area at the outset for it may be argued (Gareau, 1987) that society, its institutions and social relationships are not susceptible to scientific study, and that the methods of the natural sciences should not be applied to social phenomena. That the terms “social” and “scientific” may not sit comfortably together was illustrated by the decision of the British Government in the early nineteen eighties to change the name of the Social Science Research Council (which included mass communication research in its remit) to the Economic and Social Research Council. The message seemed to be: if it’s social it can’t be scientific!" (J.D. Halloran, Social Science, communication research and the Third World, Media Development (1998) Vol. 2, WACC).

The humanistic affinity of social science needs to be recognized, as do its overlaps with philosophy, law, geography and literary criticism, but even amongst those who consider themselves to be social scientists, we are likely to find many different approaches. These may range from those who strive to be scientific, adopting or adapting models from the natural sciences, to those who, in studying the same subjects, rely more on imagination and insight unfettered, as they see it, by scientific paraphernalia. Just to complicate matters, there are also those who attempt to blend the two approaches.

see also:

Given the foregoing, the use of the word “theory” when applied to “gender theory” hardly carries the same force of weight as the use of the word “theory” when used in connection with natural sciences, i.e.“theory of gravity”, which are objective and repeatable, and not subject to vagaries of human personalities.

By the same token, calling psychology and sociology “sciences” is frankly insulting to hard sciences like biology and chemistry, and the same weight to their conclusions is not warranted, because their methodologies are not analogous.



This is especially true with respect to “gender science”; a field in which some of the best minds have come to reject to concept altogether:

"The idea that one’s sex is a feeling, not a fact, has permeated our culture and is leaving casualties in its wake. Gender dysphoria should be treated with psychotherapy, not surgery.

For forty years as the University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School—twenty-six of which were also spent as Psychiatrist in Chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital—I’ve been studying people who claim to be transgender. Over that time, I’ve watched the phenomenon change and expand in remarkable ways.

A rare issue of a few men—both homosexual and heterosexual men, including some who sought sex-change surgery because they were erotically aroused by the thought or image of themselves as women—has spread to include women as well as men. Even young boys and girls have begun to present themselves as of the opposite sex. Over the last ten or fifteen years, this phenomenon has increased in prevalence, seemingly exponentially. Now, almost everyone has heard of or met such a person.

Publicity, especially from early examples such as “Christine” Jorgenson, “Jan” Morris, and “Renee” Richards, has promoted the idea that one’s biological sex is a choice, leading to widespread cultural acceptance of the concept. And, that idea, quickly accepted in the 1980s, has since run through the American public like a revelation or “meme” affecting much of our thought about sex.

The champions of this meme, encouraged by their alliance with the broader LGBT movement, claim that whether you are a man or a woman, a boy or a girl, is more of a disposition or feeling about yourself than a fact of nature. And, much like any other feeling, it can change at any time, and for all sorts of reasons. Therefore, no one could predict who would swap this fact of their makeup, nor could one justifiably criticize such a decision.

At Johns Hopkins, after pioneering sex-change surgery, we demonstrated that the practice brought no important benefits. As a result, we stopped offering that form of treatment in the 1970s. Our efforts, though, had little influence on the emergence of this new idea about sex, or upon the expansion of the number of “transgendered” among young and old."


In short, even if “gender theory” is considered to be somehow “scientific”, which is a seriously debatable proposition, the fact is that the foremost scientists in the field don’t consider the “science” to be settled.

I agree, but why are so many people fooled into buying into this?

They’ve lost the ability to reason. Or the desire to reason.
Which is ironic in an age where reason is supposedly king over the “superstitions” of faith. We have a profoundly absurd culture that can’t think it’s way out of a paper bag.

My criticism is not to the contents of what the Catechism says… it’s with your criticism of the wording used.

I agree with what the Catechism says… I just don’t agree with using it in unwarranted context.
You have to explain how applying scientific methods to human behavior is somehow taking dignity away from humans.

I don’t think “gender theory” is necessarily the explanation for all human problems related to “gender” whatever you want to call it, but I do value the work that people have put to try to explain many of the still unknown issues about human behavior in what relates to gender.

And also don’t forget that Medicine and Biology also have influence on these fields as well.

God bless,

Constant repetition by the media. And constant ‘positive only’ portrayals. Only the Church is providing the correct information.


Where exactly did I say this?

In the original post I quoted:

God bless,


someone help me out here.

What don’t you understand?

You have to explain how applying scientific methods to human behavior is somehow taking dignity away from humans.

“applying scientific methods to human behavior”:
“A human being is an integrated person, not a theory.
Theories are debated, subject to individual opinions and ideas, and accepted or discarded”

“taking dignity away from humans”:
“Human beings deserve much better than that.”

God bless,

Gender Theory is part of the “sexual revolution” ethic, that there is no ethics when it comes to sex. As a result, the pelvis is the ruler, and nobody can argue with the pelvis.

The end goal of this “sexual revolution” ethic is: no freedom of opinion.

Could you please get a grip on yourself.
I never said this or even implied or inferred it:

You have to explain how applying scientific methods to human behavior is somehow taking dignity away from humans.

And I did not say this:

“applying scientific methods to human behavior”

whatever that half-sentence means…It’s not mine. Maybe you are conflating my ideas with someone else.

If you disagree and insist these are my words, please quote the god forsaken post where I said them.
Or just ignore me

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