Indiana Catholic Women's U Becomes Trans Friendly, Then Reverses Course

[Carolyn Marie]

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/256340/indiana-catholic-womens-college-reverses-transgender-admissions-policy-we-are-deeply-sorry

 

It is a shame, but not unexpected, given how conservative American Catholic Bishops are.  Most have little use for the current Pope and his newfangled ideas.

 

 

Carolyn Marie

[AllieJ]

The quote for the Current Pope saying "Gender Ideology" identifies the heart of discrimination and the oppression of trans people. Conservative simply don't believe Gender Incongruence is real, and openly claim we are choosing this life because it appeals to us. This is what we must reverse if we hope to gain equality. 

 

I hope this school is actually responding to community sentiment by returning to inclusiveness, as it would demonstrate that community can turn things around even in conservative institutions. 

 

Hugs,

 

Allie

[KayC]

No courage ... no progress.

[Ivy]

I think a lot of people want to be inclusive or at least tolerant.  But will cave to pressure on them when it comes down to it.

[MaeBe]

Quote

In March, Pope Francis called gender ideology “one of the most dangerous ideological colonizations.”

 

“Why is it dangerous? Because it blurs differences and the value of men and women,” he added.

When a religion is based off of the empowerment of a subset of people based on a singular binary characterization (penis ✅, vagina ❌) blurring the lines becomes important to prevent, I guess. Sex != Gender, Francis! What value is derived from the sex of a person, Pope, that is not created to enshrine a power dynamic that suits your way of life?

 

My mother went to St. Mary's and I feel like she, rest her soul, would have approved of the more welcoming policy. I wasn't aware of this controversy until now, but I feel for those people that tried at the very least. I also like the backhanded response they gave when they were forced to revert the changes. Essentially, "shame on you close minded bigots". But, they did crumble under pressure. Perhaps it was just too high profile, being so adjunct to a premier Catholic university; one where a current SCOTUS judge once held roost.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

I disagree with the folks who are of the opinion that religious restrictions automatically mean bigotry. 

 

The current issues in the Catholic church (and other denominations) mostly revolve around interpretations of Scripture and the importance of it.  Like it or not, the Bible contains some pretty clear language about a ban on male homosexuality and delineation of gender roles in family and society.  The disagreement comes from how applicable those things are today, and how much people are willing to submit their lives and beliefs to the authority of ancient Scripture and remain in compliance with their faith even when it becomes unpleasant or seems anachronistic.  I face that issue in my own life, and its a very strange and tricky line to walk.   

 

Many people, even in positions of religious leadership, are not exactly scholars in their own faith.  Catholics especially have not just Scripture to look at, but a book of church rules and documents and traditions that is just as long as the Bible (depending on publisher, some 1800 pages or more.)  Developing expertise in that field can take a lifetime.  Given that tension within church bodies and the complexity of the issue, reversing a decision such as this one in Indiana isn't a surprise. 

[Ivy]

41 minutes ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

I disagree with the folks who are of the opinion that religious restrictions automatically mean bigotry. 

Yeah, it's not always bigotry as such.  If your "sincerely held religious beliefs" rule out being gay or trans, it's off limits for you.  The thing is everyone else is not subject to your sincerely held religious beliefs.  In this case it is a religious school, so I guess they shouldn't be forced into accepting trans women.  A public school might be another thing.

 

If your beliefs are based on a particular book, you have to accept what it says whether you like it or not.  I was in this position for years.  I didn't hate gay or trans people, but it was against the rules for me to even look into my own sexuality or gender.  I mean, the "Word of God" thing.  In my case, I had to lose my "faith" to be free to find myself.

 

I realize that it is not the same for everybody here, and that's fine with me.  For me, being trans is only part of a whole lot of life changes I've been through in the last 10 (or more) years.  When I say I switched teams, I'm not only talking about gender.

[Carolyn Marie]

Here is the thing that always confounds me about all religions; most have a bible or other holy book that their beliefs rely on to tell them how to live life (the "rules of the road"). But many, if not most religions, also have varying interpretations of that book.  So you get all these factions within each religion; Orthodox or Conservative or Reform Judaism, conservative or non-conservative Catholics, and more types of Christian denominations than I can count, some of which are extremely conservative, some of which are very liberal.

 

But it's all based on the same book!  So who is right, and who is wrong?  Why does the Book have so many meanings to so many people, and if the Book is the word of God, why isn't the "instructions" clear or the same for everyone?

 

I mean these questions to be rhetorical, and expect no answers.  This isn't the thread for it, anyway.  I guess my point is, why should the University adhere to one set of rules when obviously that isn't the only set of rules out there?  They should be able to pick which one they want, right?   

 

Carolyn Marie

[awkward-yet-sweet]

In the case of this university, if they were an independent organization they could choose whichever interpretation of the book they would like to follow. But they are not independent. They are subject to the higher authority of their Catholic Diocese. The policy that they briefly created was not in keeping with the traditional standards of the Catholic Church which they belong to. 

 

Yes, there are lots of different perspectives on the same book. But people tend to gather in groups and they like to hang out with those who believe the same thing. In order to be part of the group, you play by the rules of that group. Break the rules and you get scolded. Break the rules too many times and you are looking for a different group.  

[MaeBe]

I get that an organization has the right to do what they will. It's all First Amendment stuff. It doesn't mean the reasoning behind it is any less "without". Perhaps I used too sharp of a word, touché.

 

The way I see it, a bunch of cloistered men (in a time when women were ill-afforded any agency and reduced to their ability to procreate and "serve their husband") gathered a bunch of writings and edited a book together. These teachings essentially push forward into time the values of a long dead age and they are kept in the name of tradition. Never mind the fact the works are based off a translation of a translation and that scholars within the Church itself don't all agree on their meanings, but let's make everyone very clear that Men > Women and Men should not debase themselves by being subservient to other Men or otherwise abdicate their Power.

 

Obviously, these are my opinions and everyone is allowed theirs, however when an organization is constructed to make women second class, the men have a vested interest to maintain the status quo. Things like statements on "blurring the lines between men and women" make things even blurrier themselves, because the edict only benefits the established status quo without regard to interpretation. I've seen my mother treated as a second-class parishioner her whole life in the Church, watched her go through the whole deaconate program alongside my father and didn't even get a t-shirt for doing so, watched her do great community work that was ignored (or even treated as "women's' work" by Pastors of the parish.

 

I stand by it though. Good on those people for trying and I get why they did what they felt they had to do. It doesn't clear the people that forced their hand of any poor form.