On June 18, 2024, the Section for Dialogue in the Public Sphere of the Missionary Department of the Archbishopric of Belgrade and Karlovci, in cooperation with the Biblical Cultural Centre, held a panel discussion at the Belgrade Youth Centre titled “Gender and Sex – One or Two Realities, Harmony or Potential Conflict with Oneself?” The event was very well attended, several Orthodox priests included, who took active part in the panel discussion, and in the informal gathering following it. We had the special honour of having the Archbishop of Belgrade, Monsignor Dr. Ladislav Nemet, and two deputies from the Serbian Parliament, Mr. Aleksandar Pavić and dr. Borislav Antonijević attend, which testifies to the popularity of the topic.
The guest speakers of the panel discussion, moderated by Deacon Dr. Aleksandar Milojkov, the Coordinator of the Section for Dialogue in the Public Sphere were:
- Presbyter Stevan Jovanović, a theologian and a Deputy Chairman of the Religious Education Board of the Archbishopric of Belgrade and Karlovci.
- Dr. Biljana Pirgić, a child psychiatrist, child and adolescent psychotherapist and psychoanalyst.
- Dr. Aleksey Tarasyev, a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Biological Research “Siniša Stanković”, University of Belgrade.
- Dr. Marko Benčić, an Assistant Professor, a specialist in pediatric surgery with experience in gender-affirming surgery and a member of the Belgrade Centre for Reconstructive Surgery.
The following conclusions were reached in the discussion, which ought to serve as the basis for future considerations on this delicate subject:
The Concept of Gender: Dr. Tarasyev explained that the term “gender” is not a biological category. In fact, the term “gender” is inappropriate in the context of biology, since it, in terms of the Latin “genus”, denotes a taxonomic category of classification of living beings (which includes multiple species) in biology. It is, therefore, more appropriate to use the English term “gender”, when discussing “gender” in terms of the so-called gender identity and gender incongruence. Introducing biology into the narrative represents primarily an epistemiological reductionism – reducing social phenomena to mere biology and deriving certain social cognitions from biology. It was pointed out that such attempts indicate a certain instrumentalisation of biology, for ideological and political purposes.
The Medical Perspective: Dr. Benčić explained how far the medical science has come in explaining the etiology of gender incongruence. The two prevailing views in the scientific community were presented. One is biological, where etiology has roots in certain genetic and hormonal factors (especially in the prenatal period). Dr. Benčić, however, confirmed the moderator’s view that the etiology of gender incongruence is still not fully understood by the medical science. The second view, according to Dr. Benčić is that gender incongruence is an acquired state, arising from different environmental influences. Dr. Pirgić added that, in terms of identity, apart from the body, there is also the relational aspect of being, which determines a person’s mental life (in psychoanalytic terms, there is a psychosomatic component). The moderator confirmed the importance of this insight. Namely, this view of man as a being distinguishes is from rigid biological essentialism and its attendant determinism. The notion of relationship, as an integral aspect of being is introduced here – which is very close to Christian anthropology (which sees being as a person) and also to Christian ontology.
The Orthodox Christian Perspective: Father Stevan Jovanovic emphasised that the Church very openly and publicly expresses its views and concerns, especially with regards to the individuals who, due to certain developmental problems experience the so-called, scientifically yet unproven, gender dysphoria. The Church sympathises with every individual, who suffers in any way and shows concern through its pastoral work, missionary activities, and this current panel discussion, among other things. However, the Church also expresses concern because certain global and regional centres of power exploit the real suffering of people, to create total confusion of societal roles and call into question the norms, practices and experiences of people from all historically recorded human societies. The Church condemns these attempts of exploitation of individual suffering in the strongest possible terms. Their aim is to destroy the moral code, culture, and traditional values of human societies, making them a fertile ground for the instrumentalisation and subjugation of entire peoples, nations and human societies, widely known as the process of globalisation.
Ideological Activism in Medicine: Deacon dr. Aleksandar Milojkov pointed out that there is considerable influence of ideological activism in the medical approach to the issue of gender incongruence, supported by evidence. Namely, the term “gender” and “gendered”, although encountered in previous scientific papers, does not exist in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) of the World Health Organisation, ICD-10, which was adopted in 1990. In that document, we find the diagnosis F64: Disordines identitatis sexualis (Disorders of sexual identity). Furthermore, it contains specific categorisations of the mentioned diagnosis where the word “gender” is not used, but only the word “sex”. Changes in terminology are to be found only in the latest version of the ICD, ICD-11. This document was adopted in 2019 and began to be enforced in 2022. In Serbia, ICD-10 is still officially in force. The new document, ICD 11 has brought about significant changes in the treatment of the mentioned disorder. Firstly, it has now been named “gender incongruence”. Secondly, it has been removed from the list of mental disorders (F classified diagnoses) and put on a newly drawn up list, called “Conditions related to sexual health”. Thirdly, the newly named gender incongruence has ceased to be referred to as a disorder, as it was in the ICD-10 document. It has now become a condition. The critical stance that such changes are the result of political and ideological activism is supported by clearly given explanations in many relevant studies, stating that these changes were necessary to reduce the stigmatisation of people with gender incongruence. The fight against any form of stigmatisation, especially with regards to people with health problems, is certainly laudable. However, the destigmatisation, which is a lofty and noble goal, cannot be a parameter in judging whether something is a mental or physical disorder or not. This view was particularly emphasised by Dr. Aleksey Tarasyev and Deacon Dr. Aleksandar Milojkov.
In conclusion, it was pointed out that the treatment of gender incongruence itself has undergone a kind of evolution. It has gone from being classed as a mental disorder of sexual identity, to a condition, or to use the “politically correct” language, a variant of human gender identity. It was also pointed out that the discussion on gender incongruence is gradually leaving the medical field altogether. Deacon Dr. Aleksandar Milojkov presented a specific scientific paper, which clearly states that science is increasingly moving away from the “why transgenderism” to the “how transgenderism”. This means that science is becoming less concerned with the issues of the above-mentioned etiology of gender incongruence and is instead turning towards the description and statistical information concerning its expression (how transgender people see and express their “gender”). Finally, the stance that the issue of “gender Identity” is steadily moving away from the field of medicine, at least with regards to the legal aspects of a person’s identity was highlighted. Deacon Dr. Aleksandar Milojkov cited the case of Ireland, which passed a law that removes the need for medical documents, for a person to change their gender identity on official documents. Thus, gender identity is becoming something that is freely chosen, and can also be freely changed during a lifetime. The question one may rightfully ask is: how far will all this go, and where will we end up as a society? Justified is also the request for us to have a moral and professional duty as academically-qualified citizens to develop a critical approach, not against the people who are suffering, but as Fr. Stevan pointed out, against the global centres of power, that can misuse the genuine suffering for the purpose of nihilation of society and the world as we know it – which would certainly mean a threat to our personal identities as well. In that sense, we ought to strengthen our critical thinking with regards to something that purports to be science – not because of a lack of faith in science, but because of an attempt at its ideological instrumentalisation and misuse.
