In recent years, gender ideology has gained traction, with proponents advocating for its adoption in various spheres of society. This has led to a contentious atmosphere where valid opposition and concerns are met with harassment.
Those who oppose gender ideology face online mobs and social media campaigns aimed at silencing and discrediting them. Celebrities like Jaya and Gloria Diaz, for instance, recently faced backlash for expressing their opposition to grooming children and allowing transgender women in pageants.
Outside of celebrities, people not only face online attacks but may also suffer real-world consequences in their professional lives, including potential employment loss, academic censorship, and reputational damage. Ironically, supporters of the ideology, who claim to champion tolerance, have become intolerant of the concerns raised by those who opposed them.
One of these concerns is the introduction of gender ideology in the school curriculum. While advocates argue for encouraging children to explore their gender identity, valid concerns arise about potential confusion and psychological distress. Children require protection and guidance, and introducing complex and subjective concepts at a young age may have unintended consequences.
The inclusion of transgender ideology within the discourse also raises concerns for biological women. Transgender women, assigned male at birth, may have biological advantages in certain domains, such as sports competitions, leading to the unfair deprivation of opportunities like athletic scholarships for young women.
Medical interventions, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy for young children with gender dysphoria, are being promoted in the United States. This is disconcerting as the long-term consequences of these interventions remain uncertain. Ethical dilemmas arise when children, who cannot even vote or drive, are encouraged to make irreversible decisions about their bodies.
Companies and politicians also often exploit gender ideology for profit and political gain, respectively, using it to enhance their brand image or secure support and votes.
One clear example of how politicians aim to ensure the security of their power is by pushing for the Sogie bill. While aiming to curb discrimination and violence, the proposed legislation promotes specific ideas and philosophies that will affect various sectors.
The bill’s very definition of discrimination overlooks objective and biological differences between men and women. Instead, the bill defines gender identities as subjective and fluid, making its implementation as a penal statute challenging. At the same time, it fails to clearly identify and categorically protect those covered by its provisions.
If the bill is enacted into law, the refusal of admission or expulsion from educational institutions based on sexual orientation and gender identity will be considered unlawful. This infringes on the academic freedom of the educational institutions. Sex-specific institutions like schools, convents, and seminaries face a significant risk of liability and may be compelled to admit individuals conflicting with their established policies.
Even more alarming is how the bill aims to prevent children under parental authority from expressing their sexual orientation or gender identity, infringing on parental authority and the right to guide their children. Parents with differing moral and religious beliefs may find their ability to provide guidance hindered.
While the Sogie bill seeks to eliminate undue discrimination, its approach risks institutionalizing state-sponsored promotion of specific gender ideologies without considering individuals with opposing views. For those who hold different moral convictions and religious beliefs, exercises protected by our Constitution, the bill risks undermining their freedom of expression.
Addressing discrimination is crucial. But we must combat discrimination while upholding fundamental liberties, avoiding the transformation of passing trends into rigid laws dictated by ideologies. Only then can we ensure true equality.
CARMEN ARCANGEL