Supreme Court redefines gender as ‘identity’ in ruling



It’s anything goes now. Look for flight attendant men wearing skirts, and male ballet dancers in tutus, carrying the role of the Clara in “The Nutcracker.”

The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not only mean that “sex” means “gender,” but that it now means identity.

In a 6-3 ruling the court has ruled that employers may not discriminate against workers on the bases of either their gender “identity” or sexual orientation.

In practical terms, it means little to large companies like Microsoft or even Alaska Airlines, which have robust policies in place that prohibit discrimination based on sexual preference or gender identity.

But for America’s small companies, and for services such as daycare centers, personal service technicians, and even someone who cleans the women’s locker room at the local gym, the court has said that gender identity and expression cannot be considered in hiring or firing. Men may come to work dressed as women, even if it cost the business customers. A business owner’s religious beliefs will not be upheld.

The ruling is expected to have wide-ranging ramifications, because by its logic, employers can no longer consider gender at all when hiring, for example, a person who fits women with undergarments at a department store.

Businesses must accommodate and provide facilities for a person who switches weekly between their identities as a man or woman, as some transgender people do. Even if it makes other workers feel like their rights to privacy are being violated.

Acting companies will not be able to prefer men for male roles and women for female roles. Need a Santa this Christmas for your photo shoots? You cannot discriminate against women for that job, and Mrs. Santa may be a he in your family photo.

The will ultimately have an impact on women’s athletics and whether men can compete in women’s sports.

“The Supreme Court got it wrong. The word ‘sex’—still today and when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964—refers to our biological reality as male or female. It doesn’t refer to our sexual orientations or gender identities,” said Ryan Anderson, senior fellow of the Heritage Institute.

“In fact, Congress has repeatedly rejected legislation that would have added sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes in federal law. The Supreme Court has simply legislated from the bench. This is pure judicial activism. Today’s ruling will have severe consequences for the privacy, safety, and equality of all Americans. The Court has rewritten our civil rights laws in a way that will undermine protections and equal rights of women and girls. It will also expose employers that are struggling to recover from the coronavirus pandemic to significant liabilities.

“Congress has not legislated such an outcome and it was wrong for the court to usurp lawmakers’ authority by imposing such an extreme policy on our nation,” he said.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski praised the ruling.

“People should not live in fear of being discriminated against or losing their job because of their LGBTQ status. I am pleased to see today’s Supreme Court holding that existing federal civil rights law protects individuals from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. This is long overdue, and is significant progress as we seek to protect and uphold the rights and equality of all Americans.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a remarkable dissent, saying that there is an “ordinary meaning” to the term “sex,” as it was written in the law, and it’s easy to understand. He wrote that the meaning of “discriminate because of sex” plainly does not encompass discrimination because of sexual orientation, but refers to gender alone: “In common parlance, Bostock and Zarda were fired because they were gay, not because they were men.” (Pp. 11-22.)

Read the Court majority’s decision on Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia here:


There were three different cases combined into one case in the Bostock ruling: A skydiving instructor who was fired because he is gay, and a child welfare coordinator fired for the same reason. Those two combined with a case about a funeral director and embalmer, who was fired after announcing he would be living and identifying as a woman.

Aimee Stephens, the funeral director, died on May 12 of kidney failure. His/Her wife, Donna, was substituted in on the lawsuit.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

(His dissent focuses on discrimination because of sexual orientation; he observes in a footnote that his analysis would apply “in much the same way” to discrimination on the basis of gender identity.)

[Read “Supreme Court decides who is a woman, ]


  1. Thank you for giving Lisa Murkowski her own paragraph. It lets us know how far she is willing to go protecting already born women. Obviously “born as a woman” doesn’t get the same protection as “I became a woman” because men’s feelings are more important than women’s safety.
    Ironic that the “damn patriarchy” that “got us into this” now protects men’s feelings at the sacrifice of most women’s feelings, opportunities, and in some cases, safety.

    • Just hire the most qualified candidate however you base it on. It’s your business. The short answer would be….I thought he/she was more qualified. End of discussion.

      • Until that dude that was hired, dressed for the interview like a normal dude shows up to work the first day dressed in drag. You know, because he’s gender fluid. Maybe in a few weeks she’ll be a he again.

      • The Supreme Court does not have the last word. Congress can write specific law to nullify the Court if it wishes to do so.

  2. Insane. Simply insane. There is no basis in law or fact for that insanity. We have to restrict the courts to a constructionist viewpoint. Legislating from the bench must end.

  3. In 1964 Civil Rights Act, “sex” meant you couldn’t discriminate against somebody because of their gender, male or female (usually female). It did not mean the method of practicing sex which is exactly what the court just did to us; i.e., redefine the word with no consideration as to what the court meant in 1964. In other words, the high court just sided with the current culture and its lean to the left. What good is it that we have more conservatives and originalists on the court if they can’t judge a law according to its original meaning.

  4. I identify as a mongoose. Are there special considerations for this class of weasels who still have all constitutional rights and privileges vested because I appear human and still reside in this wacked-out country?

  5. The next victim of the Left and the courts will be the small dairy farmer. Up to now, in most instances a city boy hired for the summer or some old guy tending toward Biden-like feeble mindedness and caught having relations with the heifers was sent down the road by the farmer. Public media and others have wanted to bring equality to these bestial fellows for many years. This will be the next court case; think you can fire that city boy for humping the heifers or being disgusting with the Shetland filly? Thank again. Fully half of the city fellows who move to the countryside and become vegans become sweet on the sheep. That’s really what that Hatchback Mountain sheep herding movie was all about, but they changed the story line for broader box office appeal in the cities. That movie ran for 12 weeks in downtown Juneau. Gorsuch comes from CO so he knows all about this.

    • Dear Editor-

      Does this comment actually meet MRA’s posting standards? I hope not, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is an oversight due to the high volume of comments you receive.

      This comment adds nothing to rational political discourse and is intended only to insult people with more liberal points of view.

      Please review and reconsider this posting.

      • Oh. And CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, NYTimes, WAPost,
        etc. etc…..don’t insult Conservatives and Republicans? Uhh, Whidbey, time to go chew on your bone.

      • Stating that some men’s sexual preferences move beyond other men’s parts can be offensive, even if true. Sometimes putting the offensive food on the table allows us to say, “No more. It’s gone too far now!” But if we don’t name it, it gets worse and we’re all food poisoned.
        Remember the flash in the pan with the numerous videos shot of Planned Parenthood directors sharing the details about selling baby parts after the abortions and even mentioning what things they hoped to buy for themselves soon after some particularly good sales, like whole heads? Rather offensive to some of us. So in this case, the mainstream media chose to push it aside, YouTube blocked it, and Planned Parenthood sued for not telling them they were being recorded. Oh, and they have never said it wasn’t true and indeed have now confessed such. The suit goes on, btw.
        But if this doesn’t see the light of day, is it better that we saved the offense or stopped the sale of baby parts, and the mothers not even getting a kickback!? Well, maybe that last part went too far…

  6. The madness continues. I’m waiting for Atlas to shrug. At some point the sane, normal, working people, may just have had enough of this nonsense.

  7. I found this to be a well thought potential explanation for the reasons why Roberts and Gorsuch reasoned the way they did…
    The examples of Amy, Bill, and Chuck make a sense in their basic form. Simply put you cannot fire a person ‘only’ because they are gay, just like you can’t fire someone for not being gay. You can still fire anyone for the same valid reason you would fire anyone else before this ruling, whether they are straight or gay.
    Most people understand and agree that in the context of the CRA “sex” means either being male or female, what the justices ruled on is that you cannot fire a person because their sex (male or female) leads them to choices you disagree with, but that all sexes (male and female) must be treated equal in the eyes of the law.
    This is a narrow opinion and a moderate win for both sides opinion that sets precedent for future rulings. It’s not the game changer it’s made out to be for either side, but a good common sense ruling based upon the law…as written.

  8. Isn’t it nice we have protection from being fired no matter what we say after we are hired. We can call the boss a GD racist with impunity and if he fires us we can sue and take over his company. But for the more timid among our clan, just complain that you want a urinal in the woman’s bathroom so you have your choice how to pee unhindered by any closed toilet.

    If all else fails, just mention that you will report him to the BLM movement and state that he doesn’t like all blacks or transgender people. He especially hates black transgenders. You will never have to prove anything in court as his business will be burnt down and you can move on to the next business (victim).

    Life is good and getting better !!

  9. So for once, I’m somewhat in agreement with an MRA article. Regular readers of this site will know me as a left-of-center commentator, with my political persuasions originating primarily from a compassionate parochial school education and a Midwestern upbringing. I firmly believe that equal rights for LGBTQ folks is a good thing and I am very open-minded in this way, as evidenced by the last Thanksgiving dinner at my house, where over half of the guests were in gay, committed relationships.

    But I also remember, recently, accompanying my wife on a shopping trip to the local Nordies, where, at a distance, I overheard the sales clerk, with a distinct five-o’-clock shadow, baritone voice, and dressed as a woman, describe to her the attributes of various undergarments on offer, along with his/her personal preferences. My wife, with her unfailing politeness, went along with the clerk, engaged in conversation, and made her purchases.

    Afterwards, we both discussed how strange the encounter was and how it could certainly put off other customers. Of course our clerk had his/her right to employment and to act as whatever gender they wanted, but in doing so, he/she should consider the degree of uneasiness imposed on others, and balance it with their desire to express themselves.

    Personally, I don’t want woman in my bathroom out of my desire not to embarrass them, and I’m sure that women don’t want men in theirs out of fear for their safety.

    • Might check your compass for drifting to the right…
      You’re kinda classy, intelligent, articulate to be left-of-center.

  10. Wow. Stupidity might be as contagious as Covid 19, and it is now a US Supreme Court pandemic. Bottom line, one is the gender of which they were born. The deluded may pretend all they want. They can have special surgeries and force children to follow their lead into the delusion. At the end of the day though they are still the gender they started as. A law protecting the hiring rights of those struggling with this awful mental illness of gender dysphoria, alas honestly calling it what it is, might have been a better fit.

  11. I would submit that the gay skydiving instructor was probably fired not for being gay but for his idiotic assertion that the woman he was instructing should feel more comfortable in close proximity to him because he was gay. There was a much less in your face method to assure the woman without throwing his sexual orientation at her. Demanding acceptance of your personal choices in a service industry where people have myriad options is business suicide.

  12. Doctors will now be forced to perform sex-change operations on people with gender dysphoria and states will be forced to fund them?
    Medicaid will be forced to pay for gender-confirmation mutilations, such as castration, mastectomies, hysterectomies, genital reconstruction, and breast augmentation?
    A male who says he’s a female can’t be excluded from an all-girls sports team, bathroom, or locker room because exclusion is sex-based discrimination?
    Colleges can’t have separate dormitories for males and females?
    Female prisoners will be subjected to males living with them and vice versa?
    Any sexual fetish with a fancy label, such as pedophilia, can be awarded legal protection?
    Failing to use address a person by the person’s preferred pronoun now violates federal law prohibiting sex discrimination?
    In other words anti- discrimination and free speech can’t coexist, legal identity privilege freedom of association can’t coexist.
    The Supreme Court can now legislate by adding new things to a law passed in 1964 that were never contemplated in 1964?
    One Supreme Court Justice can re-legislate, change any law that was passed a generation ago simply by adding things to the law that were never contemplated at the time?
    Congress, state legislators won’t know what they’re voting to pass because the cultutal meaning of their words might change between the time they passed their laws and the time somebody challenges their laws a generation later.
    We respectfully ask Senator Murkowsk, who praised the ruling: (a) why are you doing nothing to keep naked men from getting access to naked girls in showers, bathrooms, and locker rooms;
    (b) how do you justify not voting to eliminate Title VII since the Supreme Court made it a tool for, among other things, forcing lingerie shops to hire men to fit women’s lingerie and female beauticians to wax male genitals; and
    (c) what effective steps are you taking to mandate that taxpayer dollars do not finance genital mutilation, and that medical professionals lose their licenses if they mutilate healthy bodies of underage boys and girls?
    We now know, Senator Murkowski, that two-thirds of our nation’s highest court clearly despise the Constitution and the way of life it protects, do you share their ideology?

  13. Why am I not surprised that Senator Lisa Murkowski is all in for this ruling? Hopefully she will adhere to her self imposed 20 year limit to her senate career.

  14. If gender can be changed as easily as your underwear, what about race? Can I identify as whatever race a university is favoring to up my chances of getting in? Can we all identify as indigenous and thus qualify for Indian Health Service benefits? Free medical for life! Perhaps parents can put whatever gender and race on their infants birth certificate.

  15. Title IX is dead. Women’s sports takes a hit. Two-edged sword there… laudable ideal now turned laughable.

    I think it is Paglia who said this all boils down to fashion. Dress codes will now be the fashion of the day. When sexual dysmorphism, akin to anorexia, is now “protected” …nothing can be done to help these individuals?

  16. There’s a lot of ignorance in this article. Discrimination on the basis of sex was outlawed years ago, thank God. This new law just means that you can’t decide not to hire someone due to their sexual orientation or gender presentation. It’s not forcing you to hire them and you can still call for specifics. It’s just letting people live and find a means to make a living. I highly doubt this will usurp most daily lives, as this article suggests.

    • Anon, you are right. You are not required to hire “them.” But now that it is enshrined in code a bit more, find out what happens if you don’t hire “them,” they apply, and any hint of anything gets drawn out that you knew they were trans – like beard and boobs on the same guy, for example.
      You lose.
      Try and fire one. You lose.
      Ask a baker, florist, or calligrapher in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, or Arizona to what they think about having a gay person wanting wedding services as a client. They will tell you of the tens of thousands of dollars in fines simply because they stated their services would not be used for something they disagreed with – each time a gay wedding.

      Ironically, most of these knew and serviced these folks before the big ask.

      Ideas enshrined in law have consequences. All should be allowed to work. But some folks should not have legal advantages bestowed upon them. It is more than legal protection. It becomes legal license to ruin someone. I wish it were not so. I wish all were treated more equally without the law dictating such.

      Markets can do that, btw. But that brings us into another discussion. 🙂

      • Exactly. No special advantage. And certainly no free right to ruin someone simply because of a difference of opinion. This decision is Orwellian in that it elevates a minority into a position of near invincibility.

  17. I enjoyed the reference to the “person who fits women with undergarments at a department store.” That would probably be a hard job to get in Alaska because we do not have any department stores left. A woman who asks a man to help her try on bras and panties is probably not a victim. And sadly, having lived in Alaska for 45 years, a significant percentage of women are, as my President says, “not so attractive, I mean a lot of dogs.” So if she can’t get them from Amazon, the unfortunate Alaskan lady has little to fear if she is anxious about replacing her well worn undergarments.

Comments are closed.