Editor’s note: The following column explores a hypothetical conversation about LGBTQ gender identity, which is an issue many families grapple with today.
Rebecca, a young American in her late 20s, seemed restless today. She anxiously wandered around the room in all directions of the compass. Then, swiftly, she asked me, “Alexander, do you believe in death?”
I was somewhat astounded by the question but answered cautiously and without hesitation, “Yes, I do.”
“Everlasting?” she followed up.
“Of course, everlasting. Why do you ask such a trivial question? Eventually, we all will biologically vanish, forever,” I responded.
“Well, do you ever think about your legacy?” she continued.
“Not on a daily basis; but yes, I do from time-to-time,” I answered.
“Please don’t be offended,” she said. “Take my question in the friendly spirit with which it is intended. I’d like to propose two versions of your hypothetical obituary and ask which one you’d prefer. Is that OK?”
“Okay, shoot,” I smiled and answered with an expression of friendliness.
You know that this has been a difficult transition for our family.
“Thanks. Here is the first version: Alexander D. was born and raised in such-and-such place, he was educated in such-and-such institutions, he was accomplished in many areas of his life, including achievements in many academic fields. In death, he preceded his ideologically progressive, far-left child who, as an adult, considered themselves to be non-binary and requested to be referred to as “they/them.” This was an identity and ideology that Alexander D. reluctantly accepted.”
Certainly, Rebecca’s first hypothetical version of my legacy/obituary got my attention. “And what is the second version?” I asked, with obvious curiosity.
“The second version is this: Alexander D. was born and raised in a such-and-such place, he was educated in such-and-such institutions, he was accomplished in many areas of his life, including achievements in many academic fields. In death, he preceded his ideologically progressive, far-left child who, as an adult, considered themselves to be non-binary and requested to be referred to as “they/them.” This was an identity and ideology that Alexander D. sadly rejected.”
I was puzzled by Rebecca’s questions and the direction she was headed.
“So, what version of your hypothetical legacy/obituary would appeal to you?” Rebecca asked with a smile.
I looked directly into Rebecca’s smirky eyes, which were radiating signals of distorted compliments, and replied, “Rebecca, I understand your implication of and reference to my child’s decision to begin using plural pronoun “them/they” in reference to themself. You know that this has been a difficult transition for our family.
“Keep in mind, Rebecca, that social anthropologists define kinship terminology systems as a set of words (e.g., mother, father, sister, brother, aunt, etc.) used in various languages and cultures to describe or label specific relationships between relatives. Societies in different parts of the world use more or less the same terminological patterns of kinship. Indeed, kinship terminology is fundamental for the preservation of the nuclear family.”
An innocent 3-year-old child dressed as an elephant for Halloween will also innocently believe in being an elephant.
Rebecca objected with an accusatory voice, “But this traditional kinship terminology, both nouns and pronouns, does not adequately describe some peoples’ gender identity. They are not masculine or feminine, but something in between. It is a science, you know.”
“Rebecca, don’t confuse the word science with the practice of scientific inquiries. Science is not a subject like math, physics, astronomy, anthropology, and so on. Science is a method and methodology. It’s a procedure, a process used by scientists for the scientific inquiries of the natural world. Scientists ask logical questions, propose logical hypotheses, test these hypotheses, collect and analyze data, prove or disprove proposed and tested hypotheses, derive to logical conclusions, and, finally, propose explanations based on the evidence gained from their research,” I corrected Rebecca.
“Alexander, it is a proven fact that peoples’ gender identity may evolve and change in the course of their life. A child may be born as a girl (feminine) and gradually evolve into a boy (masculine). My three-year old niece is convinced she is a boy. She always yells to my aunt: ‘Mom, mom, I am a boy,’” Rebecca argued.
“Rebecca,” I countered, “an innocent 3-year-old child dressed as an elephant for Halloween will also innocently believe in being an elephant. Don’t you think so?
Each of us has ownership of our life, identity, and ideologies.
“More importantly, Rebecca, it is a proven biological fact that peoples’ hormones – the chemical substances that act like messenger molecules in the body – will definitely change over the course of their life. This is evidenced by the changes people experience in metabolism, appetite, growth and development, mood, stress, and body temperatures as they age.
“Additionally, it is an undeniable biological fact that peoples’ chromosomes (masculine or feminine) will not change in the course of their life. The X and Y chromosomes, also known as the sex chromosomes, determine the biological sex of an individual. Females inherit an X chromosome from the father for a XX genotype, while males inherit a Y chromosome from the father for a XY genotype (mothers only pass on X chromosomes).”
“Well, fine,” Rebecca reacted angrily. “So, what version of your hypothetical legacy would appeal to you, the first or the second?” she asked abruptly.
“Each of us has ownership of our life, identity, and ideologies. We can choose to vehemently disagree with the gender identity decisions that our friends and loved ones make,” I responded. “Yet, it’s important to recognize that in spite of genetics or our personal ideologies, each person has the freedom to determine the course of their life and the decisions made there-in.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
“Our freedom, however, can be used for good or ill,” I added. “Ultimately, we are given freedom that we might freely choose the good—not like robots, but like humans. That is really the only purpose of free will—to choose the good. When it is misused to choose that which is hurtful, harmful or delusional, then it is misappropriated.
“We must certainly make every effort to love and respect every human as children of God, but without fostering or enabling a harmful fantasy that ultimately changes the course of their life.
“My life and my identity belong only to me, and to nobody else. I cannot and will not compromise my life, my beliefs, faith, ideology and factual truth. So, in regard to your question, and from Judeo-Christian values, my legacy ought to be the second version that: Alexander D. was born and raised in a such-and-such place, he was educated in such-and-such institutions, he was accomplished in many areas of his life, including achievements in many academic fields. In death, he preceded his ideologically progressive, far-left child who, as an adult, considered themselves to be non-binary and requested to be referred to as “they/them.” This was an identity and ideology that Alexander D. sadly rejected.”
The views expressed here are those of the author.
