We're currently working to improve and update this website. Keep an eye out for future updates.
Home / Archives / The Transgenderism Movement, Law, and Truth 1.1.2: Our Study Requires a Proper PARADIGM to Guide Us

The Transgenderism Movement, Law, and Truth 1.1.2: Our Study Requires a Proper PARADIGM to Guide Us

The Blackstone Institute for Law and Worldview
President: Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D. (Public Law)*

Taproot of Truth 1.1.2

by Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D.*

This Section 1.1.2 provides more of the necessary foundation for adequately determining  and understanding the ontology of a movement. This additional necessity is a framework for  analysis, or “paradigm.” More than thirty-five years ago, our Blackstone ministry created Figure  1; and we have continued to utilize this framework—carefully and with a constant eye for any  need to change (none having occurred until recently with the addition Level #2C, as explained  below). This Blackstonian Worldview Model was first publicly presented by us in a lectureship  series at the Simon Greenleaf School of Law (now the Trinity School of Law) in the early 1980s.  The oral presentations were subsequently published in the School’s “Law Review.” This model  depicts only the law-related disciplines of the worldview. Other areas of life—economics,  medicine, education, etc. could be, but are not, covered here. 

The term “paradigm” is familiar to academia, where it is used as a model. In the social  sciences the term is used a bit more broadly, as an organizing device. It provides the scholar with  an identification of the critical issues and questions that he must address. It then offers a  methodology for addressing those issues and questions, and specifies the outcome of the  application of that methodology. The particular paradigm we employ in this study is the  “worldview” paradigm. The Germans have a very robust word for this paradigm, the German  being: “Weltanschuung.”

Three facts about Blackstone’s worldview model are worth noting at the outset. First, it comprehensively covers all of the critical issues a paradigm must address. Second, it reveals the  interrelationship among the disciplines included. Third, application of the paradigm, as we will demonstrate in this Study Series, verifies that America’s internal conflict has indeed been a  “Culture War,” a battle first highlighted and labeled by American sociologist John Davison  Hunter (1991). Now, however, the fissures in American and English cultures have so proliferated  and polarized that we face an even more dangerous phenomenon appropriately described as  “Culture Wars” (Irish social science professor Bryan Fanning, 2023). 

The worldview ingredients which have always affected our Constitution and legal  system fall into five realms of thought: (1) theology/religion, (2) general philosophy, (3)  jurisprudence (“legal/political philosophy”), (4) U. S. Constitutional text, theory, and  interpretation, and (5) specific issues and cases. The ingredient level #2C is a recent addition to  the paradigm. We briefly define below each of these indispensable ingredients as they pertain to  our study. 

Level #4: “Specific issues and cases” includes individual cases such as the infamous  Roe v. Wade, or a constitutional issue such as how “precedents” (previous court decision) should  be applied by courts in a current case.  

Level #3: “The Constitution” covers the text of the document, plus the constitutional  theory which one brings to his or her consideration of the document, and the body of court  decisions interpreting the document (“constitutional law”).  

Level #2C: “General Culture” is the recent addition to our model and thus requires  extra explanation. This encompasses the growing number of powerful ideologies which  interrelate with, and so strongly affect, general philosophy, theology, law, etc. This current set of  ideologies we label as a group “Radical Theories” (also known as “Critical Theories”— “Critical” being a general title we avoid because of its confusion with specific movements within  the set also labeled “critical”). The mediating effects in the West of the general culture on  theology (to which we add “law”) was first outlined in a major American publication by the  preeminent apologist, Francis Schaeffer (1968), cited earlier. These effects have now reached the  point that a full paradigm of America’s worldview war must give the general culture its proper  position in our worldview model. Note: “the arts (music, literature, etc.)” are “cultural” but are  omitted from our discussion because of their more remote relationship to law, government, etc. 

Level #2B: “Jurisprudence” (“legal philosophy”) and “political philosophy” address  the issues of law and government—their nature, source(s), fundamental principles, relationship  to other societal institutions, etc.  

Level #2A: “General philosophy” encompasses such questions as reality and existence,  origins, truth and knowledge, the nature of man and society, purpose(s), and values/principles/ morality.  

Level #1: “Theology” concerns God—His existence, nature, etc. “Religion” concerns  man’s view of that which is supreme in his life and his relationship to that supreme entity.   

The use and value of this model we can illustrate with one relatively simple view of each  component to demonstrate how the model applies to TM and law (we will elaborate later on the  various points made here). Given below for each Level is a specific issue illustrating that Level  and the contrasting worldview positions on that issue. 

LEVEL #4: ONE SPECIFIC ISSUE: Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop (2023)—Does  Colorado baker Jack Phillips, in violation of his Christian beliefs, have to create a “transitioning celebration cake” for an attorney who “transitioned from male to female” (Autumn Scardina)? “YES” fiercely proclaim the Humanists; “NO” just as fiercely counter Judeo-Christian forces. a From this most specific level, arguments move to deeper levels of our model. LEVEL #3: ONE SPECIFIC ISSUE: Under the Constitution’s   provisions/interpretation: Special Trans protections: ARE required (Humanistic worldview) V.  are NOT required and may even be prohibited (Judeo-Christian worldview). Trans proponents  invoke such Constitutional provisions as the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protections of  “liberty,” by arguing that “liberty” covers the transgenderism spectrum. But Trans opponents  counter with the rebuttal that neither the text, theories, nor past interpretations of the Constitution  support Trans “rights.”  

LEVEL #2C: ONE SPECIFIC ISSUE: The effects of intellectual cultural movements  on law and related disciplines have been, and continue to be, gigantic. Have these movements/  effects been beneficial to America and necessary to continuing national “progress”? “YES”  stoutly argue Humanists; “NO” declare Judeo-Christian advocates, who view these movements  as having thrown America into a severe, perhaps fatal, decline. Level 2C has contributed  enormously to generating and expanding the fundamental humpty-dumpty societal and legal  convulsions of roughly the last sixty years. Views and behaviors considered beyond even the  limits of polite conversation roughly sixty years ago now dominate public discourse. These  radical movements have elevated the “psychological and sexualized self” into a dominant factor  transmogrifying society, law, and government. The “victimhood culture,” fixated on  “aggressions” by “the oppressor class” against the “victimized classes,” is viewed as endemic to  Judeo-Christian America. And the Constitution and legal system are prime weapons of the  oppressors. Thus, these radical movements have fought to deconstruct (destroy) not just specific  laws, moral standards, or behavior patterns, but the very idea that a structured, sustained Judeo Christian society and legal system is valid or desirable. Contrariwise, a new radical system of  relationships and values is necessary. This set of radical movements dates from approximately  the 1920s, and includes Feminism (second through fourth waves), Critical Theory (three waves  rooted in the interwar Frankfurt School), Critical Legal Studies (three waves first erupting in the  1970s), Critical Race Theory (emerging in the late 1970s and the 1980s) and Queer Theory  (appearing in the 1990s). 

LEVEL #2B: ONE SPECIFIC ISSUE: A “just” Constitution/legal system  embodying fixed values, structures, and processes is impossible and deadly to human  happiness and progress (Humanists) v. is possible and essential to human happiness and  progress as demonstrated by America’s extraordinary history and culture (Judeo-Christian  advocates).  

LEVEL #2A: ONE SPECIFIC ISSUE: Traditional American (Judeo-Christian)  concepts of “marriage” as a permanent relationship between two persons of the opposite  “sex” (defined as binary and biological) are mere ”human constructs” impeding the “deeper  human experience and happiness” (Humanism) v. “marriage” as a “permanent, binanry  relationship” is divinely-ordained and is the only foundation for “human happiness” as well as  for the just and stable legal system necessary for society as a whole to survive and thrive (Judeo Christian position). 

 LEVEL #1: BASIC ISSUE: God. “god is dead, and we have killed him” (Nietzsche);  thus, there is no “divine or natural law” and each individual is a “sovereign self” (Fanning)  tasked with his own “self-creation” unimpaired by “human laws, institutions, etc.” (Humanism)  v. the universe and all within it have been created by the theistic God of the Bible who has  authored values and meaning and has created fixed truth and value which human  law/government ordained by him must obey, as must each individual (Judeo-Christian position).

This most brief, cursory, and intial application of the Blackstone Worldview Model  reveals a chaotic culture and legal system we might appropriately refer to as”America’s Alphabet  Soup Society.” We Christians can recover at least somewhat from this dizzying morass by  reminiding ourselves of the words of Sir William Blackstone himself: “”[The “will of [man’s]  Maker” is called the law of Nature. . . . . [This law] . . . dicatated by God hinself, is of course  superior in obligation to any other; . . . no human laws are of any validity if contrary to  this . . . .(Blackstone’s Commentaries, Tucker ed., 1803). 

*Co-founder and President, Blackstone Institute for Law & Worldview; Affiliate Professor of Constitutional Apologetics, Houston Christian University; National Director, Eagle Forum’s Law & Worldview Program

The Blackstone Institute for Law & Worldview is a 501 (c) 3 non-profit educational corporation. Donations made to Blackstone are tax-exempt.
Support Us

Donate to Help Continue the Work

PMB 190
2438 Industrial Blvd.
Abilene, TX 79605
(325) 232-2210
(325) 695-2154
The Blackstone Institute for Law & Worldview is a 501 (c) 3 non-profit educational corporation. Donations made to Blackstone are tax-exempt.
© Copyright
Blackstone Institute for Law & Worldview. All rights reserved. —
Privacy Policy
Please note that these materials are copyrighted. Thus, use without submission of appropriate fees, as well as editing, copying or distributing them without the express permission of the Blackstone Institute for Law & Worldview and their author is a violation of copyright laws.