Two claims are both true about the proper Catholic response to so-called “Pride Month.” First, it shouldn’t have to be said that nothing about the moral agenda of the month can be celebrated or endorsed by Catholics. But second, rejection of the moral and political purposes of Pride Month does not excuse Catholics from treating same-sex-attracted people “with respect, compassion and sensitivity,” in the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which further states, “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (No. 2358).
But wait, you might be asking, doesn’t the second claim contradict the first? Isn’t the purpose of Pride Month nothing more than removing every sign of unjust discrimination against LGBTQIA+ people? Aren’t the celebrations and programs associated with the month all about being welcoming and respectful of everyone represented by the ubiquitous (and ever-evolving) “pride flag” alphabet soup of sexual diversity?
In a word, no.
If the purpose of Pride Month was respect, compassion and sensitivity, the analysis would be different. But that is not its purpose. The intent of the month is not to celebrate diversity and advocate for acceptance. Its theme is neither empathy with same-sex-attracted people nor tolerance of diversity. Rather, its agenda is to impose a rigid, uncompromising and punitive moral and political agenda on all institutions of American public life. To the contrary of representing acceptance and respect, Pride Month is the imposition of an ideology, and condemnation of those who will not bend the knee. Coercion and conformity, not inclusion and acceptance, are the motivating purposes of Pride Month.
More importantly, LGBTQIA+ Pride Month purports to erase the sharp line between sexual attraction, on the one hand, and so-called gender identity, on the other. Sexual attraction and gender identity are different moral issues, requiring different responses and analysis. Catholics must, as the Catechism commands, treat same-sex-attracted people with dignity and compassion. But just as categorically, Catholics must reject transgender ideology and its entire agenda. We must conceptually separate same-sex attraction from gender identity in our consideration of these starkly different matters.
LGB vs. T
Same-sex attraction describes the phenomenon of people being sexually attracted to people of the same sex. As the Catechism explains, the number of such people “is not negligible” (No. 2358). And while “[i]ts psychological genesis remains largely unexplained” (No. 2357), we can no more deny the reality of same-sex attraction than we can deny the preference for chocolate over vanilla, sourdough over rye, or red over white. This does not, of course, legitimate same-sex sexual activity, which, the Catechism explains, cannot be ordered toward the two-fold sexual good of marital union and procreation. This does not mean that same-sex-attracted people are “disordered.” But the act is not the attraction, and we must distinguish between them in our moral analysis.
Same-sex attraction, on the other hand, is fundamentally different from transgenderism; the “T” is not the same as the “LGB.” Transgenderism is the express rejection of the immutable nature of the human person as either male or female. While legitimate cases of gender dysphoria must be treated with compassion and sensitivity, the key is that they must be treated. In the same way that we do not “affirm,” for example, anorexia, diabetes or hypertension, neither can we “affirm” someone in a “gender identity” different from the genetic, biological and physiological immutability of his or her sex.
Moreover, we must make a sharp and uncompromising distinction between gender dysphoria and transgender ideology. Dysphoria is often a temporary confusion, not dissimilar from other kinds of confusion children experience during adolescence. The vast majority of body or gender dysphorias resolve with time and, perhaps, counseling, so long as these children are not rushed into puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and mutilating surgery.
The agenda behind transgender ideology
Transgender ideology, on the other hand, is not an expression of confusion or even, in most cases, “gender identity.” Rather, it is the imposition of an intolerant political agenda supported by radical sexual ideology. The (mostly) male transgender activists are not confused about their gender. Rather, they are overwhelmingly exhibitionists with a paraphilia known as autogynephilia. This is a fetish by which often (but not always) heterosexual men are sexually aroused by imagining themselves as women, and by exhibiting women’s clothing, makeup, shoes and mannerisms.
These are the people who want to insinuate themselves in women’s sports and intrude into women’s private spaces. They do not want separate spaces because this would defeat the cosplaying, exhibitionist aspect of the fetish. This is why you often see “transgender women” (men who “identify” as women) sporting beards and other indicia of masculinity. More than 90% of such men do not do anything to change their sexual physiology. They simply “present” as women and demand that actual women (and everyone else) endorse their exhibitionist paraphilia. Trans ideology is the attempt to normalize this exhibitionism. Prominent examples are former NCAA swimmer Will Thomas, “influencer” Dylan Mulvaney and Richard Levine, former assistant secretary of health.
The collateral victims of this pernicious ideology are adolescents with gender confusion and other body issues, who require compassionate psychological and behavioral counseling. The exhibitionist fetishist men and their allies who drive the trans agenda oppose such care for children because this implies (properly) that gender confusion is a psychological pathology in need of treatment. So-called “trans women” have a strong interest in identifying with confused kids (and same-sex-attracted people) in order to hitch a free ride on the sympathy and compassion such children deserve. “Trans women” propagate the fiction that to reject their paraphilia is the same as rejecting confused kids. These exhibitionist men are moral parasites on confused kids.
This is why we must not merely ignore Pride Month but proactively oppose it. It is the imposition of moral ideology and intolerant politics. Failure to resist it will contribute to devastating consequences for adolescent children. These children have a claim on our compassion. But this necessitates that we must categorically reject “Pride Month,” the agenda of which is destroying children’s lives and erasing girls and women.
