The Abolition of Man and Woman

The Abolition of Man and Woman

This article was first printed in the Wall Street Journal. who “identifies” as a woman were in fact a woman 13 instead of a man, he would not have suffered adverse By DAVID CRAWFORD, MICHAEL HANBY and MARGARET HARPER MCCARTHY he commonplace assumption of American liberalism, that courts merely preside over contests of rights, conceals the limitless power of the judiciary to decide questions of truth without thinking deeply or even honestly about them. Bostock v. Clayton County is a case in point. Justice Gorsuch claims, in writing for the majority, that the Court’s decision to include LGBT identity under Title VII’s definition of “sex” is a narrow ruling about “sex discrimination” in employ ment, leaving concerns like locker rooms and religious liberty for future litigation. But underneath the false modesty of this declaration lies a much more fundamental decision with vast implications. The Court has intervened in the most bitterly contested question of our time—a question of philosophy before it is a question of law—and codified a radi cal new conception of human nature with a dubious ideological history. It has inscribed the abolition of treatment. Hence, Justice Gorsuch confidently tells us, “she” is necessarily the victim of discrimination based on sex. The argument would be laughable were its impli cations not so humanly disastrous. Crucial to observe are the argument’s presuppositions. Justice Gorsuch thinks that a man who “identifies” as a woman is similarly situated to a woman who “identifies” as a woman. For him to think this, he must assume that the relationship between our embodiment as male and female and our personal subjectivity (as expressed in “identity”) are essentially arbitrary and that they therefore lack any organic or natu ral unity. These assumptions then imply that a man who “identifies” as a woman might really be a woman, that to be a woman is a mental state, that we really are Cartesian “ghosts in the machine.” Without such assumptions, Justice Gorsuch could not claim that such a man and woman are similarly situ ated. Faith in the Public Arena man and woman into law. These are metaphysical judg

The entire argument of the case, repeated ad ments. Yet Justice Gorsuch naively nauseam throughout its thirty long pages, is that fails to recognize that the crux adverse employment decisions based on LGBT sta of his argument relies on and tus are necessarily a form of “sex discrimination.” effectively codifies them. The Why? Because it is impossible to make these deci question of sex discrimination sions without treating similarly situated individuals in employment is relatively differently, based on their sexes. If a male employee unimportant compared to the momentous imposition by law of these very questionable philosophical propositions with their vast implications for society. It is impossible to redefine human nature for just one person. When a fourth-grade girl is required to affirm in thought, word, and deed that a boy in her class is now a girl, this does not simply affirm the classmate’s right to self-expression. It radically calls into question the meaning of “boy” and “girl” as September 1 is the World Day of Prayer for such, thereby also calling into question both her own “identity” and that of everyone in her life, from her mother and father to her brothers and sisters, and all Increasingly we find the Care of Creation of her friends and relatives. As well it should. If each of us is defined by a sexual or gender “identity” only the courts assuming this authority, though In 2015, Pope Francis established World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation as an opporarbitrarily related to our male and female bodies, now relegated to a meaningless biological substrate, then in fact there is no longer any such thing as this power is typical ly exercised in part unconsciously, or tunity for individuals and communities “to man or woman as heretofore understood. We are all even ignorantly, and reaffirm their personal vocation to be stewtransgender now, even if gender and sexual identity in part dishonestly ards of creation, to thank God for the wonderaccidentally coincide in a great majority of instances. and subversively, all ful handiwork which he has entrusted to our To settle questions of truth by force of law is a under the pretense of care, and to implore his help for the protection of creation as well as his pardon for the sins committed against the world in which we live.” In stewarding creation, we must recall Pope Francis tells us in Laudato si’ that our characteristic of totalitarian regimes. And this exam ple shows just how totalizing this ruling really is. It requires everyone to live for all public and practical purposes as if what they know to be true in their pre-ideological experience of reality—an awareness we drink in with our mother’s milk—were officially false, a “stereotype.” Even worse, it requires everyone “neutrally” mediating between interests, rights, powers, and authorities. Or in this case, simply parsing “plain English.” But this is bosh, and no one believes it. Not for a second. The burdens on free speech, free exercise, and perhaps most fundamentally, free thought, are obvi bodies place “us in a direct relationship with to live for all public and practical purposes as if what ous. But the burden on the basic unity of human the environment and with other living beings”. they know to be false were officially true. Ironically, society is even weightier; for the Court has just abol

Therefore, we must learn to “accept our body, what is now “true” is nothing but stereotypes, that ished the fundamental fact on which every civilizato care for it and to respect its fullest meanbundle of mannerisms, dress, make-up, and hair tion depends, indeed on which the human species ing” and value our bodies in their femininity and masculinity. You can learn to become a better steward of all of creation with the Minnesota, Our Common Home resources including a 6-week study guide and the “Ecological Examen” – a styles by which one imagines what it feels like to be a woman or a man. Worse still, it prefers them especially when they are at odds with ones’ actual sex. The war on pronouns, an assault upon the very language by which we recognize a world in common, follows of necessity. What we are dealing with here is nothing less than a war on the very principle of depends. We have just been pushed over the edge. It’s breathtaking. As C.S. Lewis said in The Abolition of Man, we will now need the “beneficent obstinacy of real chil dren for preserving the human race in such sanity as it still possesses.” We can only hope that such chil dren will come along to point out the naked truth to prayer resource. Find these by visiting reality itself. And everyone has just been pressed our new Emperors. www.MNCatholic.org/OurCommonHome. into service. There is no totalitarianism so total as that David Crawford, Michael Hanby, Margaret Harper which claims authority over the meaning of nature. McCarthy are professors at the John Paul II Institute.