In many places, the pressure to introduce what is often called gender ideology into education, customs and various spheres continues and is becoming more pronounced. If the second term of the expression, gender, has acquired new and debatable linguistic uses under this pressure, the first, ideology, suggests that the content of this way of thinking is part of the succession of approaches that in contemporary times have sought to undermine, one after the other, the transcendent meaning of human life.
The Christian faith, which is not an ideology, nevertheless sheds light on events and reminds us that the difference (which does not mean inequality) between men and women comes from God's creative design. This is why the recent Magisterium, both of Pope Francis and of previous Popes, has pointed out the shortcomings of this approach, and in particular without limiting itself to the level of intellectual or theoretical discrepancy, but also in response to the attempt to impose it in the various spheres of social life; against this background is placed Francis' repeated denunciation of gender ideology as an "ideological colonization" that aims at "change the mentality or structure" of a people.
In practice, and also in the intention of its designers, gender ideology becomes pressure, and pressure translates into imposition, for example when it seeks to dominate legislation, most importantly educational legislation (thus entering into the conscience of minors, to influence from the root) and to make the observance of its principles obligatory in all fields. The battle for gender has already begun in the legislative arena in many countries. If in the realm of ideas the "colonizing" ideology has met with little resistance, as pointed out in an article on this subject published in this issue of the magazine, it is desirable that legislators, politicians, teachers and educators now assume their responsibility.
The opinion that our awareness of what is happening and of the need to act with prudence and clarity does not seem to be enough is very plausible. Nor should the rejection produced by remembering the truth of the human being and unveiling the fictitiousness of a socially constructed genre, and protected by the climate of moral permissiveness and relativism, come as a surprise. Ultimately, as the author of the article says, "the overtly unilateral orientation in their approaches prevents the necessary dialogue."as is natural and proper to any ideology.