I am amazed at how often these days people commit hook line and sinker to a theory of something though it lacks a central answer. They hold a great certainty that their thing is The Truth along with a faith that “Oh, some details will be worked out later.” Okay, but what if said details are kind of the main thing?
It’s like, “Let’s get this health care bill passed,” even though there are untenable parts to it. What about those parts? Oh, we’ll work out those details later. But can you do that if the details are things like how people actually get health care?
Or when I talk to physicists going on and on about the standard model of cosmology and String Theory and how great they are—they explain so much! Look how they make sense of cosmic background radiation. Except that they depend on dark matter and dark energy, which no one has ever seen or detected. In fact, these dark things have unknown properties so no one knows even how one could detect them. I.e., they are purely hypothetical, as pure as heavenly forms (think, Plato). “Oh, we’ll work 
out those details later.” Okay. But how much of the universe under this model has to be made of this Dark Stuff? 95%. What? 95%. 95% of what is supposed to be all around us is unavailable for comment. Oh. Um, anybody else wondering if it’s wise to walk very far out on this ice?
Look, I am sure that the standard model and string theory are helpful and explain many things. Just as I am sure that your health care bill does many good things. But, honestly, any theory that depends upon 95% of the universe being something at which we can only guess is not exactly worth tying your wagon to. I’m not a betting man, but I’m willing to wager that this is the one detail that will eventually shift this cosmological paradigm, as Thomas Kuhn woulda said it.
This is just how people today treat gender, both outside and, unfortunately, inside the church. One might know for sure that men should be this or women should do that. Or another might be sure that she is trapped in the wrong kind of body. Or another might be just as certain that his only true love lay in someone of the same gender.
But they are tacitly building their constructions without answering the underlying question: What actually is a real woman, Caitlyn?! If you cannot answer that, or what makes a real man, should you really be so certain about your theories of men and women and love? Or, more importantly, are you so sure that your current choice is the right thing to do? This detail, what really makes a man, which you think will just be worked out later—it’s the main thing. It’s the detail without which we are lost. Lost in the dark energy without healthcare.
Do you find yourself moving forward without a crucial detail?