On Thursday, November 14, psychologist Elisabeth H. Reinertsen published a post in Vårt Land where she expresses concern about the joint Christian declaration on 'gender and sexual diversity'. She believes the declaration can confuse and harm children and young people who struggle with their identity, and she calls for a holistic view of humanity where insights from different disciplines provide a more complete picture.
This is an ambition I share. To fully understand the human being, it is necessary to draw on multiple professional perspectives. But a truly holistic perspective requires more than putting together pieces of information – it also requires coherence and consistency. The different «truths» about human nature must be able to be reconciled, and must also be health-promoting and sustainable. The subjective understanding of gender fails on these points.
The subjective understanding is based on a Cartesian, dualistic view of humanity, where body and consciousness are perceived as separate entities. In this view, consciousness – the inner «I» – is given absolute defining power, while the body is reduced to a malleable object with no intrinsic value of its own. The body must therefore conform to the subjective feelings of the individual, regardless of its biological realities. This creates a fundamental division that gives rise to shame – a shame that the body does not match the perceived identity.
This shame and sense of incongruity is not without consequences. In an attempt to resolve this level of internal conflict, an increasing number of children and young people are seeking medical help to change their bodies to match their perceived or desired gender. This has contributed to an explosive increase in the number of children and young people who want to "correct" their bodies.
We see this particularly among biological teenage girls, a group that often has a high comorbidity with mental disorders such as anxiety, depression and autism. More and more clinicians and researchers point out that this development cannot be natural. It seems instead to be a phenomenon that is strongly influenced by social and cultural factors.
When it comes to social transition – such as changing one’s name, pronoun, and living as the opposite sex – there is also no documented effect of this as a health-promoting measure. Rather, there is a growing recognition among professionals and clinicians that social transition can contribute to cementing gender dysphoria, so that it becomes more difficult for the child to return to their biological gender.
Persistent gender dysphoria also increases the likelihood that the young person will continue with medical treatment, which involves the use of puberty blockers and hormones. These medications require lifelong use for sustained effect, with associated major side effects and irreversible consequences. This includes sterilization, loss of sexual function, and permanent physical damage.
This is, in effect, a medicalization of young, healthy bodies, where children are made dependent on medication for the rest of their lives. The practice raises serious ethical questions about how we as a society relate to children and their identity, and whether we are amplifying suffering rather than alleviating it.
When the consequences of this view of humanity are so serious – with irreversible damage and lifelong treatment – the subjective understanding of gender should be rejected. Such a basis for helping children and young people is not only medically unsound, but also fails to provide a holistic and sustainable understanding of human nature.
In contrast to this perspective, we find a holistic view of humanity in Aristotle's natural philosophy, which emphasizes that everything in nature has an inherent purpose, or "telos", towards which it strives. This is a perspective that I have worked extensively with in my own doctoral work. Here, the human being is understood as an integrated unit of body and soul. These two parts are not in conflict, but complement each other in a constructive interaction.
Within this perspective, shame can be understood as a natural response that occurs when the harmony between body and soul is disturbed – not because the body is wrong, but because we live contrary to our inherent purpose. Instead of alienating ourselves from the body, as in the Cartesian view, the Aristotelian perspective invites us to restore the balance between body and soul. Shame thus becomes not something to be eliminated, but a signal of the need to live in accordance with our nature and dignity as human beings.
This view also aligns with the biblical perspective, which describes humans as created in the image of God—a whole of body and soul with value and purpose (Genesis 1:27). When body and soul live in harmony, we achieve both physical and spiritual well-being. Shame, seen in this light, becomes not something to be eliminated by molding the body to suit our emotions, but rather a reminder to return to our inherent nature and purpose.
At a time when many struggle with questions of identity and meaning, Aristotle's natural philosophy and the biblical view of humanity can contribute to clarity. Understanding the human being as a unit with an inherent purpose gives us a tool to meet human challenges without reinforcing confusion or creating new conflicts. It provides us with a basis for recognizing the whole person – both body and soul – and respecting the dignity and integrity that lie in our inherent nature.
By building a coherent picture of the human being, based on these timeless principles, we can be true to a holistic view that embraces the whole person and gives them the dignity and integrity they deserve.
