Most Reverend Oscar V. Cruz, D.D. is the Archbishop-Emeritus of Lingayen-Dagupan. He is currently the Judicial Vicar of the National Tribunal of Appeals. He is a prolific writer, having published several dozen books mostly on judicial and moral matters. His most recent book is about the Social Doctrines of the Church. He also has a blog where he posts regularly. He is an avid coin collector and dabbles in woodworking art.
The following are true in the realm of sincerity and truth: The word alone “Homosexuality” for one reason or another, automatically carries demeaning and detestable if not ludicrous thoughts. Upon suspicion, if not actual knowledge of homosexuality on the part of this or that individual, the usual response is laughter, depreciation if not downright scorn for the individual concerned. In fact, as a matter of course, it is practically automatic for the latter to be the object of jokes and ridicule by people in general – irrespective of whether these just want to have fun or they deliberately intend to express their disgust if not downright revulsion towards the object-individual. To say that this is inhumane is an understatement.
Primarily on account of the above said denigration, considering the innate dignity of every human person and taking into account the findings of sound reason, and furthermore attending to objective information forwarded specially by orthodox Philosophy, Psychology and Psychiatry, it appears in good order to name the phenomenon anything else but what it is called long since – viz., “homosexuality” primarily because of the automatic pejorative meaning and implications of the word. It is for this sober and sobering consciousness that the said term is practically taboo in updated behavioral science – Psychiatry in particular. In fact, sound and proper findings about human sexuality – the latter’s nature, functions and consequences – have done away with the said pejorative word.
“Sexual Identity Difficulty” – this plain and simple short article wherefore uses the aforesaid expression in place of the previous degrading and even insulting title. And for good reasons such as the following: One, the assumption akin to certitude that while there could be certain individuals who might be comfortable and at ease when they are branded by the word, very much more are dismayed and feel insulted by it. Two, the term has acquired many serious pejorative implications across the decades such that it can be said with certainty that the word has not made those concerned exactly proud and jubilant for it. Three, while there can be certain personalities concerned who might find the word endearing – which is strange – practically a big number of all others find the appellation not only offensive but also discriminatory. The term then “homosexual” can forward anything but admiration and praise.
It thus appears more right and proper to replace the taboo word with the phrase “Gender Identity Difficulty”. Why? For the following more relevant reasons: Because it really is. Because it says it right. Because it is not offensive. The truth of the matter is most of those men and women concerned have not altogether chosen to be as they are – as if that is what they really want to be, that is what actually makes them happy. In the event however that there are those who want and prefer to be thus named or called, described or qualified for whatever reason, that is their personal option. Provided only: That they should behave as decently as they can. They should not encourage people to belittle them. All these are fair – along the line of “Live and let live.” After all, although all those concerned with what they might want to be called still by the pejorative term, the same can be presumed to be still desirous of keeping their self-respect in society. Exceptions to this would be relatively few.