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…
Bibliography
McCarthy, Margaret. “Gender Ideology and the Humanum,” Communio 43 (Summer2016), 275-300.
Supreme Court and Public Opinion The Supreme Court of the United States was established in 1789 as part of the basic three sections of the American governmental system: Executive (President and Staff), Legislative (Congress), and Judicial (Supreme Court System). Each U.S. State also has a supreme court, which is the highest law for interpreting cases that move into that jurisdiction. Essentially, the Supreme Court has the ultimate jurisdiction over all federal
While the decision has hung over states as one national standard, it infringes the essential principles of federalism and separation of powers that are rooted in the country's constitutional system (Silversten, 2011). During the time that the Supreme Court made this ruling, the state of Georgia basically had the same position on punishment for the crime of rape with many states. Actually, very few states permitted the executions or enforcement
Supreme Court Case Supreme Court Decision in Re Waterman, 910 2D (N.H. 2006) The Case The case addressed in this section of the report is that of Supreme Court case In Re Waterman, 910 A.2d 1175 (N.H. 2006). In this case, Tracy Waterman, working as a trooper for the New Hampshire State Policy was informed on August 29, 3003 that Vicky Lemere, the wife of one of Waterman's fellow troopers, informed Lieutenant Nedeau,
Supreme Court cases (Muller V. Oregon) women's right Why it was an issue of national importance The Muller v. Oregon case was among the most crucial Supreme Court cases in the U.S. during the progressive regime. The case held an Oregon law that limited the working days for female wage employees to a maximum of ten hours. In 1908, this case created a precedent to expand access of national activities into the
Supreme Court of Mississippi. CASH DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC. v. James NEELY. Facts In 1973, James Neely started working for Cash Distributing Co., a company that distributed Anheuser-Busch products in several parts of the United States. The company had offices in Columbus, Starkville and Tupelo. During the 1990s, James Neely was heading the Columbus office. By this time, Anheuser-Busch started to look more closely at the way some of its rules were enforced,
Supreme Court Case The Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was an extremely important one, and one which set a significant precedent in the United States that would not be overturned until the Brown v. Board of Education decision in the middle of the 20th century. The former case set the precedent for what was known as the separate but equal doctrine. The principle question considered in this case was
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now