Recent events have reignited the debate about morality and law. In the past few days, I have very often heard that “rich, white, old men” should not be permitted to legislate laws “that pertain predominately to women.” I must admit that I’m surprised this is a narrative at all considering very few of us are biologists, and, therefore, very few of us know what a “woman” actually is.*
Nonetheless, apparently, only women should be permitted to legislate and judge laws pertaining to women. That is tantamount to saying that only men should legislate and judge laws pertaining to men.
But should we not categorize these groups into even more decentralized groups? If we accept that only females should make and judge laws for females, shouldn’t we demand that only single Asian females make rules for other single Asian females?
And shouldn’t it be that only middle-aged, married African-American fathers make rules for other middle-aged, married African-American fathers?
And shouldn’t it also be that paralyzed, white, male veterans make the laws and rules for other paralyzed, white, male veterans? After all, if we're pursuing such post-modern categorization, we might as well be precise about it.
Of course, such a reality would be contemptible, untenable, and undesirable. Law is not protected in such a world. Instead, anarchy is introduced. The society these individuals who say “Men should not be allowed to pass laws for women” are advocating for looks something like this:
Male Morality Female Morality
That is not so much giving one particular group a specific set of rights and withholding those rights from other groups; as awful as that is, this is worse. Telling men to rule for men alone and women to rule for women alone is calling one gender human and the other gender not. We are guilty of bestiality if this is true.
In fact, it is not true. Humans have been granted one morality to obey. “Thou shall not commit adultery” is true for both male and female. “Thou shall not lie” is objective and unconcerned with the age, sex, or location. Indeed, morality is not defined by gender.
“Down with the patriarchy! Down with class systems!” shout many in the current political climate. The morality of those demands is not my present concern; the fact that they imply a moral doctrine is.
When someone says that an institution must be dismantled, destroyed, and replaced, they’re assuming some standard of morality to justify the destruction of the “bad” institution.
However, the problem with our progressives is that they “not only denounce the institution, but the doctrine by which they denounce.”** As such, they guarantee their own destruction as they eat themselves alive.
For example, we have a judicial institution that, at least in principle, is genderless. Men can act as judges for laws pertaining primarily to women, and women can act as judges for laws pertaining primarily to men.
The progressive demands this neutrality be destroyed.
As such, they cry for the abolition of class in society, then scream when we do not have classes. They declare that men can be women and women can be men, but then complain that men are making rulings for women. They demand that only those with a uterus be involved in specific rulings, but then tell us that men can be pregnant. With the highest possible zeal, they denounce the society for allowing children to live in poverty and die, but then prove, by a super-rationality, that the doctor should kill the child himself.
Of course, the consequence of such perverted logic is nothing less than the suicide of the species.
I hope you enjoyed! If you liked what you read and would like to support the site allowing me to continue writing articles, click here! Thank you so much!
If you’d like to stay informed about the Christian's perspective of current events, or if you’d like to join our growing community of members who love truth, subscribe here!