In the Wall Street Journal, David Crawford and Michael Hanby of the John Paul II Institute, whose amicus brief in Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC Prof. Arkes joined in a personal capacity, criticized the sweeping metaphysical judgements which lie hidden in Justice Neil Gorsuch’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision. Crawford and Hanby point out that the question of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity employment discrimination is almost of secondary importance in the case. The most profound holding in Bostock is that by defining a woman and a biological male who identifies as a woman as “similarly situated,” Justice Gorsuch has declared that “man” and “woman” as categories of human nature are essentially arbitrary and meaningless. The Supreme Court is not just ruling on the application of an employment discrimination statute, it is also declaring without supplying the reasoning therein what shall be orthodox in metaphysics for the entire nation. And this, according to Crawford and Hanby, is the most encompassing form of totalitarianism.
Some quotes from the article:
“…Justice Gorsuch fails to recognize that the crux of his argument relies on and effectively codifies [his metaphysical judgements]. The question of sex discrimination in employment is relatively unimportant compared with the momentous imposition by law of these highly questionable philosophical propositions with their implications for society.”
“It is impossible to redefine human nature for only 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 calls into question the meaning of “boy” and “girl” as such, thereby also calling into question both her own “identity” and that of everyone in her life…”
“There is no totalitarianism so total as that which claims authority over the meaning of nature. Increasingly the courts are assuming this authority, though they typically exercise it in part unconsciously, even ignorantly, and in part dishonestly and subversively, all under the pretense of “neutrally” mediating between interests, rights, powers and authorities.”
The whole article can be found here.