Great article. Thank you for writing this. Life is complicated and often there aren't nice easy clear things, especially when we move from abstract ideas to actual people. It's important to see the humanity of people, rather than see people as just some pawn in an ongoing ideological war.

One of the things I have started to do with folks who want to insist on being right about male/female etc is to have them define what a person is. Philosophers don't have a definition of a person and haven't for centuries across cultures. Because a person is complex. As soon as you insist that one characteristic is essential, then there are always exceptions which raises the question - are the exceptions then not a person? If a characteristic of a person is that they reproduce other humans, what about the people who are not capable of that? Are they a person? If a person has to have ability to move, what about people who are in a coma? Are they a person? If a characteristic of a person is some level of cognitive ability, what happens when someone loses their cognitive ability - are they no longer a person? So many instances of this where questions can be raised whenever someone tries to define what a person is. To me, this is similar to the debate about what a woman and and man is. There are so many questions. And yet, I'm drawn back to a core belief that I hold - regardless of who a person is, I'm called to love that person and see the image of God in them. They have worth and value for just being. I start from that theological basis and go from there. When I love someone and see the image of God in that person, then I can let go of worrying about the specifics, the definitions, etc. It's about the person, the humanity of who they are. It's about them being fully who they are.

Thanks again for a great article.