Culture

Human Dignity and Moral Identity

The sanctity of our humanity is best realized when we acknowledge that we are not, nor were our parents, or theirs before, self caused.

E-mail this page to a friend

Richard D. Ackerman
United States Justice Foundation
May 14, 2001

The sanctity of our humanity is best realized when we acknowledge that we are not, nor were our parents, or theirs before, self caused. Our humanity and its value derive from the fact that we were born into the dignity that we call humanity. Dignity does not come from a revolt against our inherent human characteristics. True liberty comes from the acceptance of who we are as we were created.

Denials of our biological humanity are not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty nor are they reflective of the deep and rich history of our nation. The founders of our nation, including William Penn, Abigail Adams, James Madison, and the others, adopted the position that we are to accept the lot given to us and that no man prevent us from fulfilling our destiny. This is a destiny not chosen by us, but by our Creator.

Those who would suggest that we deny our birth-given sanctity tear away at the very foundations of our nation. The foundations of our nation rest, in large part, on the notion that diversity and the marketplace of ideas are best served by self acknowledgment, not self denial.

Liberty of the mind comes directly from the acceptance of that which we do not choose. It is not our choice that we were born male or female, poor or rich, or that we were born in a certain geographical area. Liberty can be found in the acknowledgment that these things matter not to our inherent dignity. Indeed, freedom is not found in forcing another to accept our personal revolts against who we are. Being thrust by birth into a culture not of our own making is not a crutch, but a rich and robust collage of opportunity that came before us and constitutes the fundamental building blocks necessary to the fulfillment of who we were and are at birth."

As I wrote these words, I naively believed that no American could find these to be words worthy of mockery, laughter or accusations of intolerance. Well, that is exactly what happened after I presented this as my opening statement during a debate on "Sexual Identity Politics," sponsored by National Public Radio on May 7, 2001. Ironically, the debate took place at Carpenter's Hall in Philadelphia, where our Founders first secretly met as the First Continental Congress and began drafting the Declaration of Independence. I
refuse to believe that the founders of our nation contemplated that this site would be used to argue that it is discriminatory to decide, as a matter of public policy, that taxpayers will not pay for sex-change operations. I cannot believe that the Founders believed that we are born victims and prisoners of our own genetic identity. However, this is exactly what my debate opponent would have this nation believe.

The transgender agenda completely defies common sense, human dignity and public policy. This agenda espouses, among others, several notions:

A.) People can be victimized by the mere fact that they were created in a way they disagree with;
B.) There is a constitutional right to change one's sex;
C.) Elementary school children have a right to determine their own gender in contravention to their biological identity; and,
D.) A sex-change operationis a medical necessity for those who are unhappy with their bodies.

First, in order for a constitutional right to exist, one must show that the proposed 'right' is implicit to the concept of ordered liberty. It must also be shown that exercise of that right is something that is deeply rooted in the annals of our history. In essence, it must be shown that the deprivation of such a right would destroy the very foundations of our nation. Transgender issues hardly rise to the level of these legal requirements. At most, these are moral issues that, according to volumes of case law, are better left to the Will of the People through their legislatures.

Secondly, those who promote the transgender propaganda, refuse to acknowledge that transgenderism is a matter of choice. It is argued by the transgender community that its members did not choose to be born a certain way. Rather, it is claimed that they must revolt against a biological identity imposed upon them simply by virtue of their human existence. This claim admits of the fact that the only way one can be self-identified or labeled as "transgender," is by a conscious decision to 'out themselves' in the public fora. A "revolt," by its very nature, is a choice. Oddly, transgendered persons claim that this 'outing' process is necessary to their success as a class of persons under the Constitution. This can't be further from the truth.

Some things are better left unsaid, and we cannot expect that every expression thrown into the marketplace of ideas will be purchased wholesale by the public. Moreover, it is well established by law that the state has a legitimate right to regulate conduct, considered by the majority to be abhorrent, or behavioral expressions. Our courts have acknowledged that government does not need to resolve every empirical difficulty that surrounds any given piece of legislation. In other words, even if we grant that transexualism is not understood scientifically, this does not mean that the state must give up its right to regulate transgender related behavior before and after the scientific explanations are provided.

It was also suggested by my opponent that America's workplaces must accommodate cross-dressing and other expressions of a person's internal battle with sexual identity. Our employers have a right to maintain a stable work environment for all employees. They have a right and a legal obligation to keep workplaces free from sexually charged environments. The introduction of subjective standards as to the definitions of gender are hardly conducive to maintaining these necessary goals.

Next, the transgender advocate attempted to compare transgendered persons with minorities and women for purposes of Equal Protection and remediation of past discrimination. In fact, transgenderism destroys the very foundations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Were we to accept transgendered persons as a suspect class for purposes of discrimination laws under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, we would only degrade the hard work and years of effort directed toward achieving racial and sexual equality in the workplace and in education. Now, the proponents argue, at a whim, a transgender male can simply call himself a woman and claim feminine status.

Being a woman becomes meaningless and those who would oppress women in corporate advancement and other areas are now given free license to disregard the rights of women as anybody can "be" a woman if they so desire.

Lastly, we discussed the recent decision of the County of San Francisco to pay for its employees decisions to have sex change operations. According to a San Francisco Chronicle article dated May 1, 2001, the county places limits on the payment for prosthetic limbs and cardiac reconstructive surgery.

Moreover, no benefits are provided for workers whose children have learning disabilities. When I suggested to my opponent that children's needs should be prioritized over the choice to have a sex change operation, the live audience laughed at me. What was even more sad was that there was not one critic of the demands for transgender rights in the audience of approximately 60 people who attended the debate. I can only wonder if the same can be said of the 65 radio markets that the debate will be forwarded to for air play
across the nation.

I don't want to have to say, 'I told you so' when we arrive at the day when our children declare that their human dignity and moral identity do not matter. Those who would sit idly by as the minds of our children are raped and defiled by the proponents of transgenderism, homosexuality, and the broad attack on parental rights and morality are no better, morally, than David Cash as he sat by at the Prima Donna Inn while watching Jeremy Strohmeyer brutally rape and murder the young and innocent Cherise Iversen. Let us pray that my fear in this regard never becomes a reality.

Richard D. Ackerman
UNITED STATES JUSTICE FOUNDATION
2091 East Valley Parkway, Suite 1-C
Escondido, CA 92029
(760) 741-8086
www.usjf.net