From February 9 to 11, the I congress International Conference on Gender Ideology was held at the University of Navarra. During these days, academic rigor was used to reflect on the assumptions, foundations and social, political and legal consequences of gender thinking. It is certainly a question of a topic of great consequences for society. For this reason, it was considered necessary to make an interdisciplinary and rigorous effort to delve deeper into the subject, leaving aside preconceived prejudices and interested manipulations.

To this end, it was considered necessary to start from the data contributions of the various sciences: Genetics, neurology, psychology, anthropology, Philosophy, law, etc. and, with academic honesty, to integrate them through an interdisciplinary dialogue. Some of the contributions of congress would be the following:

1. The notion of gender, from a scientific perspective, is a category of social analysis that makes it possible to study the social roles played by men and women throughout history. While sex is a biological and immutable datum, gender represents the cultural and changing factor, characteristic of the human person. It is therefore a useful notion in cultural and philosophical anthropology, as well as in legal language.

2. The resource to the category of gender allows us to distinguish at least three models of male-female relationships that have crystallized throughout history: the model of subordination, the model of egalitarianism and the model of reciprocity and co-responsibility.

The first model, that of subordination, is characterized by inequality between men and women. It is understood that biological sex determines gender, i.e., the functions or roles that a person must perform in society. Therefore, this model, also called patriarchal, falls into a biological determinism.

The second model, the egalitarian one, has contributed positively to overcoming discrimination against women throughout history. However, its fundamental characteristic is the denial of any difference between men and women. In its most radical formulations, it separates biological sex from gender, falling into cultural reductionism. The person is understood only as a cultural product. This is the context of the so-called "gender ideology".

The third model, that of reciprocity and co-responsibility, attempts to make equality and difference between men and women compatible. On the one hand, their equality in dignity and rights is evident. At the same time, differences are evident at the genetic, hormonal and even psychological levels, which make them equal and different at all physical and psychological levels, in the way they see reality and solve problems. The experience sample that when masculinity and femininity act complementarily, a great fertility and richness is achieved, both in the family and in the work environment.

3. Some practical consequences of model of co-responsibility would be the following:

In both the public and private spheres, men and women must be present in a balanced way. This implies, at present, a greater presence of women in public life and of men in family affairs and the Education of children. This requires, on the part of the State, the adoption of policies more committed to the defense of the family and to continue advancing in the conciliation work - family, both for women and men.

In the face of the undervaluation of the social image that nowadays extends to motherhood, and the withdrawal of the private sphere, it is essential to promote the family, understood as the basic human habitat for a balanced development of the person.

In final, an anthropological deepening of human dignity and its consequent fundamental rights cannot be achieved only by taking into account the data of the empirical and human sciences. It is necessary to overcome biologicist and cultural reductionism in order to understand the human being from his radical unity between body and spirit, nature and culture, biology and freedom.