Pope Francis has made a statement against what he has chosen to call “gender ideology”.  According to the Pope, gender ideology seeks to erase the difference between the sexes: “Cancelling out the differences means cancelling out humanity.” 

If I understand the argument correctly, the Pope argues that binary gender is an essential part of our concept of humanity.

Let’s consider that.  Binary gender is certainly the understanding of most religions, but that is not a philosophical or moral argument.  The arts have also long favoured binary gender, but equally that is not a philosophical or moral argument.  On what moral or philosophical basis do we dispute non-binary gender?

Granted on one side that binary gender has some historical and societal creds among European and American nations.  But not among American indigenous or Asian nations, so it is far from worldwide amongst humanity.

Noted on the other side that the putative Christian God does not have a gender: the masculine reference is used as an identity placeholder.  We must come back to that one.

What philosophical reasons could exist for disputing non-binary gender?   The Ontario Human Rights commission argues that “gender identity is linked to an individuals’ intrinsic sense of self, particularly the sense of being male or female” (or both or neither).  So a person who identifies as ‘non-binary’ is living and expressing their sense of self.  To argue that this is somehow philosophically or morally wrong is to maintain that it is wrong to have a non-binary sense of oneself: that the very thought or perception or feeling is wrong.  Some religions argue that there is sin in thought, but that argument has neither philosophical nor moral value.

There are some societal arguments against non-binary gender, such as the fear of abuse in washrooms, unfairness in sports, undue influence on children.  By and large, such fears are being or can be allayed with societal adjustments.  Already many venues offer unisex washrooms, for example.  In any case, sexual assault remains a crime, as does luring of children. 

Some have attempted a demographic argument, citing the threat of population decline.  Since “one in 300 people in Canada aged 15 and older are transgender or non-binary” (Statistics Canada, Census Data) this threat is for some dystopian future.

I see no persuasive arguments against the proposition that non-binary and transgender individuals should have the same human rights as binary individuals.  The Ontario Human Rights Commission maintains:

“Everyone should be able to have the same opportunities and benefits, and be treated with equal dignity and respect including transgender, transsexual and intersex persons, cross-dressers, and other people whose gender identity or expression is, or is seen to be, different from their birth sex.”

I do see scope for debate on questions about:

• when irreversible actions (whether hormones or surgery) should be allowed;
• whether parents have the right to be informed of their child’s gender choice at school;
• whether trans athletes should be allowed to compete in the same class as binary athletes.

Let’s return to the Pope.  Although God as ‘male’ is presented as a placeholder – God having no gender – the Throne of Saint Peter sits at the top of an organization that is unashamedly patriarchal.  It has a history of misogyny and abuse, some of which has been acknowledged.  Maintenance of the patriarchy requires binary gender, so it is in the church’s interest to oppose non-binary culture.

Perhaps I’ll end by being just a jot Jesuitical and note that the church tells us to emulate God as best we can: well, God is with without gender …