As the church attempts to address gender ideology with compassion and clarity, studies continue to emerge about its impact on children, families and society. John Grabowski, the ordinary professor of moral theology/ethics at The Catholic University of America, has written extensively on the church's understanding of sexuality and the human person. He spoke with OSV News' Charlie Camosy recently about the roots of gender ideology and the questions raised over a recent study which found that prescribing puberty blockers to children did not improve their mental health.
Charlie Camosy: In 2022 you published a book titled "Unraveling Gender: The Battle Over Sexual Difference." Obviously one would need to read it to get your full case, but can you give us the basic thesis of that book?
John Grabowski: The book seeks to trace the rise and impact of gender ideology in the Western world. At the heart of this ideology is the idea that one's "gender identity" is self-chosen and need not correspond to the body and its "sex assigned at birth." The book considers some of the philosophical sources of this set of ideas -- modern existentialism, postmodern thought, Marxism -- as these have impacted the various waves of modern feminism. The spread of these ideas has been facilitated by the destabilization of the family and personal identity caused by the ongoing effects of the industrial, sexual and technological revolutions.
At root, gender ideology is a 21st-century version of ancient Gnosticism that sees the body and the material world as things to be overcome rather than gifts to be received from the God who created us.
Recent church teaching, especially St. John Paul II's catecheses on the theology of the body, helps us to recover a better biblically grounded (and scientifically accurate) understanding of ourselves as male and female made in the image of God (Gn 1:27). Our task as Christians is to defeat this dangerous set of ideas in the public square and in the church, while responding in love to persons struggling with gender discordance.
Camosy: What can you say about developments since 2022 and how they fit with your thesis?
Grabowski: We've seen a number of other excellent books on this topic by Catholic authors which offer complementary critiques of gender ideology on scientific, philosophical and theological grounds. These would include volumes by Abigail Favale, John Finley (as editor), and Michele Schumacher. There are also sources which try to formulate pastoral responses and ethical guidelines for accompanying people struggling with discordant gender from individual bishops, national conferences of bishops, Vatican dicasteries and groups of Catholic scholars. Pope Francis continues to be clear on the dangers posed by gender ideology. It seems clear that many in the church are awake to the dangers posed by going woke.
At the same time, we have seen other countries continue to move to restrict gender transitioning procedures at least for minors. That list now includes France, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand and the U.K.
Suffice it to say that these countries are not taking these steps because of deeply held Christian or natural law convictions. To be sure, monetary considerations play some role in countries with some form of socialized medicine and these procedures are costly. However, equally important is the fact that there is little evidence that these treatments are effective in treating gender dysphoria.
Leaving people permanently medicalized, sterile, struggling with new heath problems, continued psychological pain, and a staggering increase in rates of suicide is not good medical care by any standard. It is medicalized self-harm.
Camosy: One perhaps surprising development is that mainstream outlets are actually reporting on the misleading and false claims made by defenders of gender theory. What do you make, for instance, of the recent reporting from The New York Times on the withholding of the findings of a major study funded by the National Institutes of Health on the results of giving children puberty blockers?
Grabowski: There have been a number of whistle-blower type studies that have challenged the prevailing politically correct gender orthodoxy that have taken hold in some parts of the medical establishment. A leading medical journal in the U.K. published a study which argued that the standards of care used by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health, the American Psychiatric Association and the Endocrine Society are not evidence-based. This was followed by the Cass Report to the National Health Service in the U.K. which found shaky evidence for the use of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones to treat gender discordant children.
The fact that The New York Times actually covered the suppression of similar findings here in the U.S. is an encouraging sign. Apparently, this reporting has sparked the promise of congressional investigation into practices like this at NIH.
People who have been studying these issues with some degree of objectivity have seen for some time that the emperor of gender ideology has no clothes. Now they are getting the courage to say so publicly.
Camosy: Does all of this point to a discernible trajectory in your view? I've heard some claim, for instance, that we are finally seeing a broad backlash against gender theory. What's your view?
Grabowski: Based on what I've described, I do think that there is a backlash in the making. It's underway in other parts of the world, but it's coming to our shores as well. We are seeing even liberal pundits attributing the recent U.S. election results to the Democrat promotion of gender ideology. That ideology just doesn't make sense to average Americans of whatever sex, color or background.
When people consider the risks to women posed by biological men in women's restrooms or locker rooms, the reality of self-identified transwomen impregnating biological women in U.S. prisons, or the potential eradication of women's sports, the flaws in this anthropology are obvious.
Sadly, there are a lot of vested financial interests at stake on the part of some in the pharmaceutical and medical industries so there will be resistance to change. It may well take one or more of the current lawsuits brought by detransitioners being decided on behalf of the plaintiffs before some of these companies begin to back away from the ongoing human experimentation in which they have been engaged.
