The issue of LGBTQ+ needs to be addressed. Those individuals who will skip over this part or will choose to toss this manuscript in the garbage bin are not interested in any perceptions except their own reflections that have produced their own ironclad and unchangeable conclusions. Their mind is closed. A closed mind can only be opened by the individual in possession of that closed mind. I know how hard it is for an individual to pry open that mind because a closed mind is a willful act and only a willful act on the part of that individual will open that mind. There are times when opening one’s mind is not an easy thing to do.
I have read some articles about parents of children who were born with ambiguous genitalia. Recently some of these parents have elected to follow their own minds and hearts and not the advice of doctors who have recommended to the parents that an operation on these unfortunate babies be performed to yield either male or female genitalia and not leave the ambiguous genitalia to be resolved until after the infant grew to the age when that life, that individual, could decide what should be done to that individual’s own body. My recollection was that these articles indicated or implied that this surrendering of the decision-making process to the child in question was a new trend. To get a clear accounting of ambiguous genitalia, I searched the Mayo Clinic’s online information regarding this issue. It was simple enough to type in “Mayo clinic’s information on ambiguous genitalia.”
I have read some articles about parents of children who were born with ambiguous genitalia. Recently some of these parents have elected to follow their own minds and hearts and not the advice of doctors who have recommended to the parents that an operation on these unfortunate babies be performed to yield either male or female genitalia and not leave the ambiguous genitalia to be resolved until after the infant grew to the age when that life, that individual, could decide what should be done to that individual’s own body. My recollection was that these articles indicated or implied that this surrendering of the decision-making process to the child in question was a new trend. To get a clear accounting of ambiguous genitalia, I searched the Mayo Clinic’s online information regarding this issue. It was simple enough to type in “Mayo clinic’s information on ambiguous genitalia.”
What is of utmost importance to this reflection of LGBTQ+ is that all births are not perfect. That is to say that not all in utero development and births follow the same path and render the exact same outcome over and over again without any deviations. The fact is that there are individuals who are born with ambiguous genitalia on a physical level of having some parts of both male and female genitalia. Interested individuals should read the information from the Mayo Clinic for a broader understanding than I will report here. I have selected only a very brief statements made by the Mayo Clinic online: “A disruption of the steps that determine sex can result in a mismatch between the appearance of the external genitals and the internal sex organs or the genetic sex (XX or XY).”
This one sentence states clearly the fact I wished to highlight at the onset of this part of this reflection. The operative word critical to this part of this reflection is “mismatch”. There is a physical sexual mismatch in some newborns which means the sexuality of said individual is ambiguous. The parents and the medical team work together to determine how to respond to such a reality. Some parents have decided to not make any determinative decision regarding the sex of the child and have elected instead to raise the child with loving care and to assist the child in making any definitive decision about that child’s sexual orientation.
These are facts about the reality of sexuality which can easily indicate that sexual orientation may be very difficult to determine by some humans who, through no fault of theirs, is ambiguous until that individual develops and reflects upon the sexual orientation that is true for that person. Empathy should be the first response to such a situation. Sexual ambiguity may not be so easy to experience and resolve. The development over time of such lives would determine how that individual demonstrates a preference for one sexual orientation over any other. This is not about choosing one’s sexual orientation as much as it is about learning what the real nature of the sexual orientation is for that individual.
For me, these facts from the Mayo Clinic serve to define the common ground for resolving the apparent polarization regarding LGBTQ+ status and/or lifestyle.
First, I did not choose my DNA. I inherited it. I did not choose my biology. I inherited my DNA and developed in the womb as circumstances and my DNA so determined until I was born into this world. I did not have much say in these matters. Can I or should I be held accountable for my DNA or the circumstances of my birth? No individual can be held responsible for his or her parents nor the biology which was inherited. The individual begins to be held responsible for his or her actions when that individual is capable of making informed decisions. At that point the individual’s responsibility for his or her self increases until the legal age is achieved whereupon that individual is completely responsible for the life being lived and the decisions made.
Given the uncertainty of ambiguous genitalia, sexual orientation may not be so clearly determined as eye color or skin color. Who is to say what the sexual orientation should be of those individuals who were born with ambiguous genitalia? It is a difficult decision to make that is probably infused with strong emotions and no small amount of anxiety, but it is for the parents in conjunction with medical staff to wrestle with possible ramifications for the possible choices to consider. My point of view is that if it is at all possible for the individual child to be healthy and loved until he or she can decide for him or herself with guidance from caring family, friends and professionals, then that should be the path to take. I surmise that at some point, some form of biological intervention would have to occur once the individual knew what sexual orientation is preferred to facilitate a full life experience of that preference.
If we now recall two important facts to keep in the forefront of our minds of chaos theory’s 1) sensitivity to initial conditions and 2) the nature of pervasive nonlinear elements, then we can confidently surmise that no one individual can truly know definitively what the true sexual preference of any individual is in reality. Common ground would be that the individual is the one who determines his or her sexual orientation. If there is a mismatch of female chromosomes (XX) and male genitalia present in an individual, you or I as ordinary citizens cannot know anything about the true internal ramifications of the unseeable mismatch. Likewise a mismatch of male chromosomes (XY) and female genitalia is undetectable by myself or others regarding the life that must contend with such a mismatch. Who are we, as outside observers, to judge the life of other individuals as though we have intimate knowledge of that life being lived? To this we must add the fact that nonlinear elements are the dominant realities of the universe and not linear elements. I, for one, do not know all of the nonlinear elements that might be part of the sexual development of human life. The knowledge that I do have with confidence is knowledge about myself and my sexual orientation. Otherwise, I cannot for certain state or know what is true about any other human person. I can over time become acquainted with another human person to the degree that person decides to be self-revealing.
Common ground principle: The individual is the primary source for determining what is to be done to the body of that individual. My body belongs to me. I am the sovereign ruler over my own body. This is true regardless of sexual orientation.
However, just as there are sovereignty issues pertinent to the individual, there are also sovereignty issues pertinent to the society as a whole. Do certain situations exist in which the sovereignty of the individual and the sovereignty of the community are in conflict? Suicides are a good example of this issue and not all cultures resolve this issue in the same manner. The Japanese culture has a ritual form of suicide called “seppuku” for males and “jigai” for women. In general suicide in the United States of America is, at the very least, frowned upon, or considered taboo. In the Roman Catholic Church, suicide is a mortal sin; therefore, if the suicide is successful that soul burns in hell for all eternity. Being raised a Catholic I thought that suicide was against the law, but my son, the police officer, said that it was not. There are some states (nine plus the District of Columbia) which permit physician-assisted suicide. A few of these states require a court decision for such a procedure. So, in the U.S. it is accepted in certain situations.
Agápē infusion: Nurturing and facilitating the individual to achieve the highest level of humanity humanly possible requires a definitive investigation into what drives any individual to suicide and then to work diligently to mitigate such causes.
If it is clearly discovered that the individual seeks suicide because that individual has lost all hope of experiencing a healthy, rewarding life, then intervention is required. To facilitate the changes necessary for that life to rekindle hopefulness and confidence and, if a better living condition is open to that individual, assistance in gaining such a life must be demonstratively assured. In this type of a situation, the sovereignty of the society should overrule the sovereignty of the individual because life can be saved and that individual is then nurtured to experience a sustainable, healthy and rewarding life. However, in the case of a terminal illness in which the quality of life has significantly diminished and the individual seeks a physician-assisted suicide, then that individual’s sovereignty will need to present its case before the court system to assure that all hope is, in reality, gone. Humanity embraces the sovereignty of the individual over his or her body in all cases unless suicide is the issue and there is hope and a demonstrative, realistic avenue to eradicate the desperation that motivated the individual to seek suicide.
Agápē reality is intangible. Agápē reality speaks to the intangible realities of human existence. Intangibles such as soul or spirit and emotions or feelings are colorless. Agápē relationships are intangible like fire is intangible. With fire we feel the heat; we see the flame; we smell the acrid visible ash, but these are the results of the oxidation process that is fire. Fire is more of a process than a tangible entity; an agápē relationship is like fire in that we can observe its effects. We can see how the individuals act in a relationship, but the relationship itself is intangible. Being intangible does not make any of these realities less real.
Agápē (love) between consenting adults is not sexual in nature and therefore exists between any individuals regardless of sexual orientation. It is sexless, but this does not mean that sexual experiences cannot be, or are not infused with, agápē reality. On the contrary, it is my wish that all relationships, LGBTQ+ and all other relationships, be infused with agápē realities.
Issues of LGBTQ+ are matters of individual sovereignty. These are issues for the individual to decide with the assistive advice of significant others who hopefully are governed by agápē realities as well. The rest of us should be less judgmental. Tolerance may be more of an agápē reality than a philía reality. Perhaps tolerance is a reality that promotes a transition from philía into agápē reality.
Another polarized issue in need of a defined common ground is pro-choice and pro-life. This issue has some very similar aspects to that of suicide as discussed above. The common ground principle that the individual is the sovereign ruler over his or her own body remains unchanged and remains the point upon which actions must be considered. The possible conflict between the sovereignty of the individual and the sovereignty of the community or society is also equally at play. The infusion of agápē realities is critical in seeking to resolve the polarization of this issue. This is not to say that such a resolution will be easy to implement, but starting with the infusion of agápē realities makes for a more efficient means to reflect.
With 38.1 million individuals living in poverty, there are 38.1 million people living without sufficient income or material possessions for their needs. A woman has to assess for herself if she has the means to take care of the life that will be borne nine months down the road, if all goes well. If all does not go well, then her situation is much worse. If she is living in poverty already or if she has no visible means to support herself and the life she will bear, then what is the more humane course of action — to bring a life into existence only to watch it struggle to adequately survive or to terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible before that life becomes conscious of such a brutal reality as chronic poverty? If the woman is already living in poverty, how well will she be able to afford a robust prenatal care assuring that the development of that life will have the strongest chance of healthy development?
The effects of poverty are debilitating. As a teacher for twenty-five years plus, I have plenty of experience working with children who live in poverty and attend school with children who do not live in poverty. There is a substantial difference in the lives of the two groups. Many years ago, research established that children living in enriched environments have a much easier time learning.
My college education included required readings that scientifically offered proof of such a position. The study that stayed in my consciousness, more than the others, all of this time was about a study on mice. This study impacted me because of the final procedure of the study that offered its proof. One group of mice were given an enriched environment while the other group of mice lived in an impoverished environment. When the designed amount of time living under these conditions ended, all of the mice were killed and the biological makeup of their brains was studied via autopsy. Scientists found that the mice in the enriched environment had substantially more developed brains than the impoverished mice. Outside of the findings, I was struck by the brutality of raising mice only to destroy them to prove or disprove a point. For mice, science can be brutal. The science and other academic treatises that I had to learn were verified by my experience as a public professional educator.
There are emotional and other stress factors that children must endure when growing up in poverty. The issue of clothing was the glaring stressor that I witnessed as a teacher. Kids can be cruel and kids are sensitive to clothing and fashion, especially noticing which children are the haves and which children are the have-nots. Public schools guarantee that all children have access to education, but children living in poverty suffer much emotional pain from ridicule and outright meanness from schoolmates who are developing through the process of learning-by-doing into more sensitive caring individuals.
Additionally, there is a difference between those schools which have all of the resources necessary for a robust educational experience and those that are lacking in basic supplies. This issue is simple. Every reader of these words knows from personal experience that having financial resources makes a world of difference.
Agápē infusion: Nurturing and facilitating each and every individual to achieve the highest level of humanity humanly possible has real consequences pertaining to economic structure.
If you are a pro-life advocate, then you must also work to assure that every woman and every life birthed gains all of the means necessary for that life to flourish to its highest level. Societies adhering to pro-life must also strictly adhere to the agápē principle of nurturing and facilitating the individual to achieve the highest level of humanity humanly possible. That means, to my thinking, that pro-life advocates must also work diligently, robustly and constantly to eradicate all poverty. Until all poverty is eradicated, pro-choice grants that the woman’s sovereignty overrules the sovereignty of the community. The woman’s sovereignty must overrule society’s sovereignty because the society of today is not infused with agápē realities.
Additionally—and this is an issue that is very difficult to consider—the emotional status of the woman is equally important as her poverty level. There are women who have the means to care for the life that they potentially can bear but some may not have the emotional stability to care for that life. Emotional stability that supports the ability to care for a child is a topic that could be discussed in depth, and I will simply mention it here as another issue of equal importance. Issues pertaining to the situation of an emotionally unstable mother and the needs of her child also need to be resolved via agápē realities applied to both the mother and the child. Agápē realities again are the beginning reference point and the ending criteria upon which to base future actions so a child born to an emotionally disturbed parent or parents requires a diligent and deep response from supporting individuals with a robustly developed and expanded consciousness.
Agápē realities significantly affect economic structure and the distribution of wealth. Agápē realities significantly question the morality of wealth disparity because wealth disparity drastically affects the health of the lives of individuals which in turn drastically affects the health of the community. Poverty and economic injustice are social illnesses that agape realities can heal.