The recent announcement of Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement from the United States Supreme Court is fraught with tension particularly regarding women's rights and, though less so, gay and minority rights. Ms. O'Connor's widely circulated comment – "I am disappointed, in a sense, to see the percentage of women on our court drop by 50 percent" – has been seized by activists alarmed that even the justice herself is uncomfortable that her nominated replacement, John Roberts, is not an XX chromosome human being. Though Ms. O'Connor puts full confidence in Mr. Robert's judicial aptitude, her lamenting supporters wish that President Bush presented a more estrogen-rich litigator.
Odd, don't you think?
I've already examined the problem of male/female equality in "A Fifty-Million Dollar Apology For Simple Math." There I presented a rather curious logical impasse: Harvard President Lawrence Summers' provocative suggestion that men and women are intrinsically different was greeted with umbrage by those who talk about equality and yet insist that women are not equal to men. If you've not read it, I recommend it to you. I suspect that you might find it somewhat provocative in its own right.
What is odd, is not that Ms. O'Connor should be disappointed. Nor is it odd that activists have used her remarks. That sort of thing is to be expected, and would be odd if Ms. O'Connor or her supporters expressed no emotion at all. But what is odd is that no one knows, other than Ms. O' Connor, what she means by her remarks. For she does not say why she's disappointed, and no one has seemed to ask. She's just "disappointed, in a sense." What does that mean?
Does it mean that she believes President Bush prefers men? Who knows!? Does it mean that she thinks Bush is misogynistic or sexist or repressive? Who knows!? Does it mean that there are no women litigators skilled enough to fill Ms. O'Connor's shoes? Again, who knows?! We are not at all given any insight into Ms. O'Connor's remarks, in large part because the media have treated them thoroughly superficially. The assumption is that she merely wishes Bush had nominated another woman. But for all we know, Ms. O'Connor's "in a sense" means that she is disappointed that so few women have applied themselves sufficiently to the legal profession, thus leaving the Administration few choices.
Of course, I recognize that O'Connor seems to imply something. But it must be admitted that all of us are left in the ambiguous dark as to why she is truly disappointed, particularly when we think about equality, and equal rights. If, after all, men and women are equal – one sex as capable of knowledge and skill and judgement as the other – how then is it an inequality having men decide legal issues for everyone? If there are no differences between men and women, then how is a man exempt from making judgements about equality as it pertains to women? Or are men and women in essence different, bringing different learning styles, perspectives, and intelligences to the Court? Are there legal issues that pertain only to women, others only to men? If we admit this, then men and women are NOT equal under the law, nor are men and women equal in general. Hence, if we admit all this, then why would the enlightened intellectuals at Harvard – and nearly everywhere else – chastise commentators like Lawrence Summers?
Forsooth, even a transsexual recently suggested here at Contratimes that the "new" she now possesses "superior female intuition." Is there indeed something superior to women's minds in some areas? Moreover, are we in fact not heading toward expecting a certain sexlessness, a kind of androgynous amalgam on the Supreme Court? How about – and this might thrill a certain set – loading the Court with transsexuals, balanced with a kindly blend of women who were once men and men who were once women. Of course, the Court might then be rescued from the morass of sex differences, but we would still be dealing with legal, social and ontological inequalities, as transsexuals by definition are different, and thus not equal to those who would be excluded from the bench. Ahhgh! The illusions and elusiveness of equality!
Is there a conclusion to all this? It's hard to know. Take it as just the clashing of sundry symbols – the tokens of power and equality and even genteel democratic dialogue. There is no clear winning here, no obvious passage out, and no flag to wave in victory or surrender. We simply must press on, carrying in our satchels of certitude the miscellany of ambiguities of which life is so sorely composed.
One thing we know: We'll need a lot of grace to make it home.
Contratimes
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes
[Photo: Peterborough, NH - Iraq war protest, woman in black garb, Gay Pride and American flags. Camera: Canon EOS 3. Lens: Canon EF 17-40/4L. Film: Fujipress 800. Exposure: 1/500 @ f8. Click on photo for larger view.]
2 comments:
"Even a Transsexual"? OMG! I laughed out loud when I read that! I can see that if nothing else, my crack on "superior female intuition made quite the impression. Howsomever, I would not say I was "sexless", just based alone on those stupid breast exams I have to have now that I am *ahem* over 18. I do think you might need to lay out in greater detail as to how we TS folk are "diffrent" and "unequal" through...then again, a whole Supreme Court made up of well, me,
would change quite a few things for the better in my less then humble opinion. *grin* Conservative Christians beware! *evil grin*
Danni Lee
Dear Danni Lee,
Thanks for your comments. I am glad to make you chuckle.
You wrote:
“...I do think you might need to lay out in greater detail as to how we TS folk are "diffrent" and "unequal" through...” [sic] (You mean “though”, I realize, but I have to quote you exactly.)
I am eager to oblige. Please let me first point out that in nearly every one of your posts at Contratimes, you have, as a TS, pointed out how “different” you are: different from who you were, and surely different from what I am.
That point is worth noting, but it is hardly sufficient to satisfy what you expect as “detail.” Though I am sure you’d agree that how you became a female is far different than the way Hillary Clinton or Laura Bush became female, I am also sure that you’d find that fact unconvincing.
Permit me to declare that water, whether dirty or clear or blue or frozen, is always H2O. Permit me to also declare that glucose is always C6-H12-06, and that chlorophyll is always C55-H72-MgN4-O5. I will also be wildly speculative and suggest that gold is AU, with atomic number 79 and atomic weight 196.967, even if painted to look like silver.
Similarly, a human female with a beard and chest hair is still an XX chromosome (the X or sex chromosome inherited from both mom and dad), just as a human male in a skirt and heels is an XY chromosome (the X from mom, with dad abstaining, so to speak).
Thus, as a TS male (formerly), you may of course be without all the accidental (contingent or superficial) characteristics of being male, yet you nonetheless remain an XY chromosome. In other words, your very essence at the DNA level remains male. In fact, should a forensic analyst sift the rubble of a scorched and collapsed building (wherein you unfortunately met a tragic end), that analyst will declare, “We have a male victim here” because of what the DNA evidence presents. The analyst will not be able to infer anything other from the remains. Identification of the victim as a TS will have to come later, by looking at medical records or some other source.
This will not be the case with a non-TS male, should his body be exhumed 300 years hence to discover whether he was indeed king of the world. For his DNA and medical records corroborate each other: he’s plainly male. Hence, you and this male are quite different from one another. However, the two of you are not so different on the DNA level, and hence, are indeed equal: you are both male. But that would mean you’d have to define yourself as male in order to be his equal, which is not something you are willing to do, I bet.
In conclusion, it is those who are TSs who claim to be different, different from who they once were, and different from their non-TS peers. Difference implies inequality, and vice versa. Two things at the same height are at equal heights; two things which are not at the same height are not at equal heights. A man who once was a woman, changed by surgery, is not equal to the man who was made man by the caprice of evolution or the fiat of a creator God.
Again, all this may be unconvincing to you, and not qualify as sufficient detail. I am merely trying to point out the rational and scientific truth. There may be other ways of looking at all this, but I am confident that the argument from science is a compelling one. TSs are welcome to define their sexuality themselves, changing behavior patterns and appearances in order to be "new" or "honest." But that makes them different than non-TSs, who are defined largely by nature.
Lastly, I submitted transsexuals as possible candidates to the US Supreme Court because they, allegedly, know what it is like to be male and female (though this is debatable, as most TSs insist they were always just one way). But if it is true that TSs know what it is like to be both sexes, then they are very different from the rest of us. Truly, that might even be a legal advantage to them, giving them protections under the law as man AND woman simultaneously.
Anyhow, take this as you will, which may be with a grain of salt. I appreciate your interest here, and I am grateful that you are willing to challenge me.
Peace to you.
Post a Comment