Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli

From the beginning of the 21st century, the English language has been undergoing radical surgery. Words once acceptable have been cut from common usage and branded as a cancer infecting society with sexist attitudes. Today, it is better to ask for a server in a restaurant and not for a waiter or waitress. These last two nouns might offend a person who identifies as neither. Better to say flight attendant and not steward or stewardess. First-year student, not freshman. Chairperson, not chairman. Firefighter, not fireman. Spokesperson, not spokesman. The list could go on.

In many cases, the change of words represents a heightened sensitivity in communication. There are women who bravely fight fires. There are women who are students in their first year in college. There are women who speak publically for institutions and governments. Not labelling them with words that are masculine respects their dignity.

However, the use of non-sexist language is becoming increasingly more complex. In 2014, the social media giant Facebook recognized more than fifty categories of gender. And, the city government of New York allows someone to choose from thirty-one different genders. Because of the wide choice of gender identity, some people, especially in universities and colleges, no longer use the masculine pronoun he (him) or the feminine pronoun she (her). They opt from what they deem more acceptable alternatives such as ne, ve or ze. Finding the right pronoun is not so easy anymore. In the past, it was the simple choice between he and she or him and her.

The driving force reshaping the English language is much deeper than sensitivity in conversation. Its root lies in the rejection of the biological distinction of male and female. In the past, one’s sex and hence one’s gender, were determined at birth. “It’s a boy!” “It’s a girl!” That’s how mothers and fathers would joyfully announce the good news. But today some parents feel free to leave undetermined their offspring’s sex. They claim that the gender of male and female are mere social constructs. They hold that gender is not determined by the body of a person, but by the person’s thoughts, feelings and emotions. In fact, anyone can choose their gender according with how they see themselves at a particular moment. And, then, they can change at another moment.

Rejecting the binary choice of male or female is symptomatic of a philosophic crisis that rejects metaphysics and espouses a gnostic anthropology. Gnosticism posits a radical division between the immaterial and the material, the spiritual and the physical, the soul and the body. Matter is evil. Spirit is good. The material world is darkness. The spiritual, light.

The gnostic accepts the dualism of body and spirit. For the gnostic, the ultimate goal of life is to escape the evil body. What matters most is the mind, the emotions, the thoughts, ideas and feelings. The body is inferior and, therefore, can be manipulated by the person for his or her purpose. Therein lies the heart of the matter.

From the very first centuries, Christians have rejected this gnostic tenet. We are not a spirit inhabiting a body. We are an integral person. Our very body is essential to who we are as a person created in the image and likeness of God. Our physical body is not a thing to be manipulated but an inherent aspect of our very person. Our body is to be respected. As Sacred Scripture teaches, “God created humankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Gn 1:27).

The body is good. “God looked at what he had made and found it very good” (Gn 1:30). Human sexuality, male and female, is a gift from God for his purpose of increasing the human family. Gender is not a social construct. It is a given in nature by the Creator.

On February 2, 2019, the Vatican issued a document entitled Male and Female He Created Them. This document states that “the disorientation regarding anthropology which is a widespread feature of our cultural landscape has undoubtedly helped to destabilize the family as an institution, bringing with it a tendency to cancel out the differences between men and women, presenting them instead as merely the product of historical and cultural conditioning” (n. 1).

The document candidly admits that there are situations that are very complex and painful. These situations call for our understanding and compassion. But the love of others also requires us not to hide the truth of biblical revelation. “The Christian vision of anthropology sees sexuality as a fundamental component of one’s personhood. It is one of its mode of being, of manifesting itself, communicating with others, and of feeling, expressing and living human love” (n. 4).

As Pope Francis has said, “The acceptance of our bodies as God’s gift is vital for welcoming and accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home, whereas thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation. Learning to accept our body, to care for it and to respect its fullest meaning, is an essential element of any genuine human ecology.”

Most studies report that less than five percent of the United States population identify themselves as transgender. Yet, they have been strong enough to be reshaping our language to respect their beliefs. Does this mean that those who identify human sexuality as male and female can no longer use such language? Can a masculine pronoun no longer be used for a biological male? Or a female pronoun for a biological woman? Is there something deeper at stake when politicians, university professors and the media make our language a flag of allegiance to their ideologies? George Orwell once said, “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” Is this what is happening today?