By DONALD DeMARCO
Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez, former prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, began his book, Male and Female He Created Them (Ignatius Press: 1997), by stating the following: “No human institution is so deeply rooted in nature and in the heart of man and of woman as marriage and the family.”
The distinction that human beings are male and female — rooted as it is in Scripture, nature, and in the human heart, as well as recorded in history and codified in law — would seem to be so firmly established that it could never be denied. Moreover, if it were denied, it would seriously undermine the very basis of society since sexual identity, marriage, and the family and their concatenation are its fundamental building blocks. Remove the building blocks and the whole edifice collapses.
In 1976 the notion of two sexes and the heterosexual impulse between them came under attack when the Brussels International Tribunal on Crimes Against Women identified “compulsory heterosexuality” as one of the “crimes against women.” A more concerted opposition to the time-honored distinction between the sexes was made in the 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing. A 1993 article by one Anne Fausto Sterling, entitled “The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough,” had claimed that there were actually five different sexes, with the additional three: “herms, merms, and ferms.” Accordingly, “herms” are hermaphrodites, “merms” are male pseudo-hermaphrodites, and “ferms” are female pseudo-hermaphrodites. And Shulamith Firestone, an influential feminist, argued: “Humanity has begun to outgrow nature.”
The rejection of the male/female dichotomy was reinforced in various women’s studies programs. Deconstructionists claimed that male and female were socially constructed stereotypes. Relativism and subjectivism also played their roles in rejecting what was labeled as “heteronormativity” in favor of a multiplicity of genders. Sexual identity, as many feminists argued, is “fluid” and can change in any person from one form to another. God, it was alleged, did not create the sexes, society did, and no one knows exactly how many sexes there really are.
The confusion about sexual identity, which has been going on for several decades, is the basis for a recent interpretation of a law that has many people scratching their heads. The New York City Commission on Human Rights, on December 21, 2015, released a new interpretation of the city’s transgender antidiscrimination ban, according to which business owners who fail to call transgender people by their preferred name or pronoun or bar them from using “opposite-sex” bathrooms may be fined as much as $250,000. In case the reader thinks that this stated amount is a typo, it actually is a quarter of a million dollars (see The Wanderer, January 14, 2016, p. 3A).
Personal pronouns have now become the new taboo words, replacing traditional obscenities. “Sticks and stones may break my bones,” according to the old rhyme, but words now could cost me $250,000, send me to sensitivity training, and saddle me with other penalties. The New York City Human Rights Commission has discovered what comes pretty close to the unpardonable sin.
Some of the “violations” included in this 2015 new interpretation of the law are presented herein:
Prohibiting an individual from using a particular program or facility because they do not conform to sex stereotypes. For example, a women’s shelter may not turn away a woman because she looks too masculine nor may a men’s shelter deny service to a man because he does not look masculine enough.
Prohibiting a transgender or gender non-conforming person from using the single-sex program or facility consistent with their gender identity or expression. For example, it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to prohibit a transgender woman from using the women’s bathroom.
Enforcing a policy in which men may not wear jewelry or make-up at work.
Refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, calling a woman “Mr.” because her appearance is aligned with traditional gender-based stereotypes of masculinity.
Discrimination based on an individual’s failure to conform to sex stereotypes is a form of gender discrimination according to the New York City Human Rights Commission. Sex stereotypes are widely held oversimplified expectations about how people of a particular sex or gender should be or how they should act.
Requiring employees of one gender to wear a uniform specific to that gender.
Permitting female but not male residents at a drug treatment facility to wear wigs and high heels.
Failure to provide “Transgender care [which] includes a range of treatments, including, for example, hormone replacement therapy, voice training, or surgery.”
The commission states categorically that it “can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.” The commission’s “Legal Enforcement Guidance” will, undoubtedly, become a legal battleground in the fight to safeguard women’s shelters, public restrooms, sex education programs, and businesses that require the employees to wear uniforms.
More significantly, it throws into deeper confusion the nature of sexuality, marriage, and the family.
The rejection of Genesis — “Male and Female He Created Them” — has, indeed, serious implications. Politics cannot replace nature. Human Rights Commissions cannot replace Sacred Scripture. The zeal to protect human rights must be anchored in truth, justice, and charity. The exorbitant nature of the commission’s stated penalties does not appear to be reasonable or protective of everyone’s rights. It appears to be an ideological scare tactic, rather than a reasonable document with which society can happily accept.
One may well wonder if, by rejecting “male/female” as stereotypes, an important step is being taken to dismiss the notion of “human being” for the same reason. At this point, the Human Rights Commission would become entirely irrelevant.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress