Memo for the Judge

Margaret McCarthy makes a number of arguments against gender as a social construct (i.e., gender identity aka gender ideology) that are more than Biblical or religious arguments. In reality, McCarthy's arguments stem from natural science and philosophy, making them difficult to ignore. For example, McCarthy argues that gender identity is based on a false understanding of the nature of the human person and that it leads inevitably to a denial of objective reality. These are not simply Biblical or religious arguments, but rather arguments that have been supported by rational arguments and deductive reasoning. As such, they should be accepted as rational argumentation. Similarly, in the Amicus Brief submitted in the Harris Funeral Home Case, the issue of how to define sex is at stake, as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has defined the term more loosely than may have been intended in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The EEOC sees the matter as one of defending the rights of transgender people. Harris Funeral Home sees it as a matter of fact that transgender people are not identified in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and therefore are not protected against discrimination.

McCarthy notes that people who believe in the differences of sex cannot but believe in this as it is tied to their culture, upbringing, sense of purpose and place, and also to their religious beliefs, as is the case for Catholics.[footnoteRef:1] To insist that they give up believing in these differences is to insist that they give up any hope of salvation. Catholics often believe that women and men are different because they were created by God to fulfill different roles in society. This belief can lead Catholics to view gender as a natural and essential part of their identity. Similarly, people who were raised in cultures that emphasize the importance of gender roles may...…that there are a number of cultures around the world where there are more than two genders, and argue that this shows that gender is not an inherent quality.

On the other hand, opponents of gender ideology, and McCarthy and Harris Funeral Homes would count as opponents, argue that gender ideology and trasngenderism fly in the face of nature. They point to the fact that human beings have been divided into two genders for millennia, and argue that there is no good reason to change this now. They assert that a cultural revolution backed by political pressure is forcing this change.

While not everyone will agree with their perspectives, they are worth considering in their proper context. Whatever side of the debate one falls on, it is important to remember that it is not fundamentally a religious argument. Rather, it is an argument about what is natural and reasonable and, ultimately, what is best for a healthy society as…