The Dispatch: More from CWR...

The Death of Sexuality

A world that can no longer see that being born into a condition over which we have no control differs significantly from the actions we consciously choose is a world that rejects the very possibility of freedom, morality, or love.


Through legal alchemy the Supreme Court in Bostock v Clayton County has rendered the word “sex” meaningless.

Traditionally “sex” referred to the complementary conditions of being either male or female, which in turn referred to complementary abilities to beget or bear offspring. Modern usage has moved the emphasis from something based on biologically verifiable traits to something we do with our biologically verifiable parts. Whereas we once were able to refer to “the better sex” without a hint of the erotic, now we speak of “better sex” assuming only the erotic. Having already lost in the transition any real sense of male and female rooted in procreation, the Supreme Court has delivered the coup de grâce to the word “sex” with a “definition” that stems from neither tradition nor current fad. In doing so, it has not created new law, because law requires definition. Rather, it has simply destroyed existing law and replaced it with an anarchical emptiness.

In considering “gay” and “transgender” as simply variants of the word “sex” similar to “male” and “female” the Court’s ruling has forced the square pegs of the former into the round holes where the latter comfortably fit. “Male” and “Female” are inherently physiological terms describing a materially verifiable state of being. “Gay” and “transgender” describe psychological states that cannot be materially verified.

Objections will be raised that though they are psychological states, to be gay or transgender is no more freely chosen than male or female. Since they are given conditions, they cannot be discriminated against. Yet they are different, particularly in regard to the law, which should not discriminate on the basis of mere being but necessarily discriminates when men and women begin doing. To be male or female is a state of objective existence. To be gay or transgendered in the modern world no longer indicates mere inclinations but a subjective existence expressed in a lifestyle full of choices, a lifestyle that may or may not coexist well with the public good. The ruling of Bostock v. Clayton County was not about states of existence but about lifestyle choices lived out.

The art of sophistry is not to prove two equal things equal but to prove two unequal things equal. Though sophistry may make a lawyer wildly successful, it can simultaneously destroy the law. Justice Gorsuch, in playing the sophist in this case, has not added meaning to “sex” but rendered it meaningless, reducing even “male” and “female” from objective realities to subjective expressions equal to “gay” and “transgender.” Ultimately, as the alphabet soup that extends beyond LGBQT… makes clear, the list goes on ad infinitum.

To say that every man can define his own sexuality is simply another way of saying that sexuality actually has no meaning at all. The upbeat idea that we each define our own meaning is nothing more than nihilism hidden behind the façade of a happy face.

While the LGBQT community is reveling in the new ruling, it should be advised not only that good law protects all while bad law ultimately only destroys, but lives lived meaningfully lead to happiness and fulfillment while lives without meaning trend toward misery and its various pathologies, including suicide. But the destruction is even greater than that. A world that can no longer see that being born into a condition over which we have no control differs significantly from the actions we consciously choose is a world that rejects the very possibility of freedom, morality, or love.

A man whose actions are predetermined by the condition of his birth is not free but a slave to his biology. He cannot love because he cannot freely give what is not his to control. Without freedom of action there is no possible morality. Those who oppose and persecute him can no more be judged and found wanting than he can. In such a world law does not exist to regulate relations among men who have equal claims to life. Rather, it exists so the powerful can exert their will over the less powerful.

Bostock v. Clayton County is the ultimate triumph of the Sexual Revolution. In our drive to live out our sexual urges without guilt, we have slaughtered children in the womb, destroyed the lives of many who survive the womb, destroyed our marriages, and destroyed our families. Rather than seeing that our sexual desires should lead us beyond ourselves into the joys of creation, family and gift, we have reduced them to an itch that must be scratched. Rather than draw us out of ourselves toward others, our sexual desires draw us into ourselves. In doing so pleasure has replaced purpose and our feelings have mastered us (one might say enslaved us).

Even our caring has succumbed. Instead of a concern for the other, one that begins with the gift of one’s self rather than the wealth of another man, we are now masters of a preening self-righteousness that makes us feel good about ourselves. Instead of a seeing those we disagree with as fellow travelers seeking truth, we can judge and condemn them as deplorable. In this new self-created righteousness, we no longer see ourselves as justified by God’s love but by our own goodness. Instead of an infinite and transcendent goodness we now seek a goodness so small that it may disappear altogether.

The Sexual Revolution was never about sexuality’s redemption. It was always about its destruction. As it approached its final victory we ignored the simple realization that if a man could be a woman it no longer meant anything to be either. But we chose not to see it because it blended so well with everything else we chose not to see, especially the holocaust of the unborn. We could not see because we have been driving nails into the coffin of our sexuality from the time we accepted contraception as a norm.

Once we divorced sexuality from procreation we divorced it from life. Since then the only thing it could do was die. As a culture we killed it before transgenderism was vogue. On Monday, June 15th the Supreme Court of the United States declared it legally dead.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

About Pete Jermann 3 Articles
Pete Jermann is a retired craftsman and former homeschooling father whose articles have appeared in Crisis, Touchstone, The New Oxford Review, The Imaginative Conservative, and Lifesite News.


  1. Because of men like John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch, the government of the USA stolen from the hands of its citizens by six cloistered witch doctors, canting Ivy League psycho-babble.

    Such men have confected for themselves a fraudulent police state, with ZERO moral authority, and holding nothing more than secondary, juridical power. Having themselves long ago divorced from submission to the reality of Nature’s God, they thus cannot and will not inspire good men to defend as policemen and soldiers.

    Therefore, the USA ossifies and decays within, and will then be conquered and enslaved by ruthless enemies from without.

    Our Catholic Church is in the grip of fraudulent Bishops, and our country is in the grip of fraudulent lawyers incapable of justice.

  2. Pete, you nailed it and I want to thank you for your beautiful words. Yes. I am in mourning. America has died and is in the tomb. However dawn comes after the darkest hour. We do have the pure teachings of our True Church. We do have the Theology of the Body. So yes we mourn and lament the death of our current culture. But we keep our hearts and minds married to Truth, and Truth is marching on. Glory glory Alleluia!

  3. You wrote: “In considering “gay” and “transgender” as simply variants of the word “sex” similar to “male” and “female” the Court’s ruling has forced the square pegs of the former into the round holes where the latter comfortably fit.”

    That claim has no basis in the Court’s ruling nor Gorsuch’s opinion. You didn’t even read the ruling, did you?

    This website’s standards have gone way down. Maybe stick to authors who are educated and actually read and understand something before they comment on it in ignorance, okay CWR?

  4. Jermann writes: “To be gay or transgendered in the modern world no longer indicates mere inclinations but a subjective existence expressed in a lifestyle full of CHOICES…”
    As for this open-ended (so to speak) realm of “choices,” and the pandemic Sexual Revolution, we have the earlier testimony of poster-child (bi-sexual) Andre Gide. This from his/her/its biographer:
    “[Gide] emphatically protests that he has not a word to say against marriage and reproduction (but then) suggests that it would be of benefit to an adolescent, before his desires are fixed, to have a love affair with an older man, instead of with a woman. . . the general principle admitted by Gide, elsewhere in his treatise, that SEXUAL PRACTICE tends to stabilize in the direction where it has first found satisfaction; to inoculate [think coronavirus!] a youth with homosexual tastes seems an odd way to prepare him for MATRIMONY” (Harold March, Gide and the Hound of Heaven, 1952, caps added).

    Four observations:

    (1) Rather than normal herd immunity (moral compass), better to simply REDEFINE marriage and now sexuality itself!

    (2) And no better way than by COUPLING our culture of sexual experimentation with a Supreme Court fatwa!

    (3) In this reorientation, the early Gide is to the Court as the early Feuerbach is to Marxism. (Said Feuerbach: “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to CHANGE it.”)

    (4) Even the meaning of (wife-swapping, etc.) “swinger” is changed, climaxing into “swing vote.” The jurisprudence-dysphoric courtroom majority cross-dresses as motel-room bastard.

  5. For some the strongest urge of the creature is sex. For the Christian Philosopher Aquinas it’s to live. Albeit the sexual drive is certainly a close second. Pete Jermann argues the case well, Once we divorced sexuality from procreation we divorced it from life. Paul VI forecast that terrible cultural fate in Humanae Vitae. The hexagonal tablet called the Pill. The rabid arguments often clergy the vanguard, besides intellectually sound argument in favor [the panels of experts accumulated by Paul VI to assess the morality of its use] was nonetheless twice rejected by him and declared in Humanae that its use was gravely immoral. A red light. Unfortunately the rationale seemingly logical was preferred. The green light prevailed within culture and a rebellious clergy and largely unwitting laity. Evidence that Paul’s condemnation was divinely inspired. The initial practice of using the pill opens the gateway to pleasure as the premier principle of conjugal relations. Spiritual good came in a distant second and today is nowhere to be seen. Few, extremely very few priests or even our spiritual defenders of the faith our bishops preach on this. To their sad detriment. I pray for mercy. All the abnormalities in sexual behavior stem from making pleasure our guiding principle. It doesn’t look good for us if we take this seriously. All the more reason why I preach the doctrine of Humane Vitae. I’ll finish my comment with today’s Gospel reading Mt 7, 6 12-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. The gate that leads to damnation is wide, the road is clear, and many choose to travel it. But how narrow is the gate that leads to life, how rough the road, and how few there are that find it”.

  6. Sad but true. Brilliantly stated and well written. If only everyone could see what has transpired and understand the consequences of these actions there might still be hope for future generations.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. The Death of Sexuality - Catholic Mass Search

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.