Equality

With the Equality Act, Congressional Democrats Want To Redefine 'Sex' To Include Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation

Here's why that's a bad idea—and it has nothing to do with God's wrath, women's rights rollbacks, or locker-room predators.

|

Dire warnings are circulating about the Equality Act—a piece of culture-war legislation scheduled for a vote this week in the U.S. House of Representatives. Its stated purpose, in brief, is "to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation."

The act would lead to "the death of women rights," suggested Missouri Republican Rep. Vicky Hartzler. "Religious freedom goes out the window if this bill becomes law," wrote Star Parker in millennial conservative outlet The Daily Signal, which titled the piece "Equality Act Is About Civil Tyranny, Not Civil Rights." In a Washington Post op-ed, three former elite athletes suggested that it would obliterate women's sports.

Pro-Equality Act factions have pinned high stakes on this bill, too. "In 30 states, LGBTQ Americans do not have the freedom of full equality," but "the Democratic House will take a big step forward this week by passing the bipartisan #EqualityAct," tweeted Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D–Wisc.)

The bill was introduced by Rep. David Cicilline, a Rhode Island Democrat. It has 240 co-sponsors, including every Democrat in the House except for Rep. Dan Lipinski, and no Republicans except Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R–Pa.), John Katko (R–N.Y.), and Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon of Puerto Rico, who can vote in committee but not on the House floor.

But what does the equality act actually do?

The Equality Act works by modifying the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and other federal statutes concerned with discrimination and segregation.

Its reach includes public accommodations, public education, lending, housing, federal assistance programs, Medicare and Medicaid, employment, housing, public facilities, and more. It would insert into all of these laws and existing programs a prohibition on discrimination or segregation based on "sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity)."

The bill defines sex to include not just biological "sex characteristics, including intersex traits," but also "a sex stereotype; pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition;" and "sexual orientation or gender identity." It then stipulates that:

  • "Pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition shall not receive less favorable treatment than other physical conditions."
  • "An individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity."
  • The U.S. Attorney General can institute civil actions against schools (which is what we saw a lot of with Title IX under Pres. Obama).
  • The U.S. Attorney General may intervene "whenever an action has been commenced in any court of the United States seeking relief from the denial of equal protection of the laws under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution," if the A.G. says the "case is of general public importance," in which case the feds "shall be entitled to the same relief as if it had instituted the action."

The House bill also expands covered public accommodations and facilities to include any:

  • "establishment that provides exhibition, entertainment, recreation, exercise, amusement, public gathering, or public display;"
  • "any establishment that provides a good, service, or program, including a store, shopping center, online retailer or service provider, salon, bank, gas station, food bank, service or care center, shelter, travel agency, or funeral parlor, or establishment that provides health care, accounting, or legal services;" and
  • "any train service, bus service, car service, taxi service, airline service, station, depot, or other place of or establishment that provides transportation service."

Establishments are specifically "not to be construed to be limited to a physical facility or place."

Will It Pass?

With a Democratic majority, the House is likely to pass the Equality Act. But its passage in the Senate is unlikely.

Even if it does get through Congress, President Donald Trump may refuse to sign it. Earlier this week, a White House statement said that while "the Trump administration absolutely opposes discrimination of any kind and supports the equal treatment of all," the Equality Act is full of "poison pills" that threaten "to undermine parental and conscience rights."

The Battle Lines

Conservative activists and others are trotting out all the old bogeymen in service of riling up the opposition. Evangelical entertainer Pat Robertson said it would lead to the "judgment of God on this nation" and the Lord "vomit[ing] us out." A time-tested coalition of socially conservative women and radical feminists warn that it would endanger girls at school, lead to sex predators in bathrooms, encourage abortion, and enable people pretending to be transgender for athletics purposes.

Supporters are casting opposition to the measure as indicative of raging homophobia, transphobia, and a desire for LGBTQ Americans to be second-class citizens. "Passing the act would be a major step forward in stopping the Religious Right's aggressive agenda to redefine and weaponize 'religious freedom,'" reads a statement from Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Moral Majority holdouts like Pat Robertson aside, the issue for most opponents seems to have little to do with the sexual orientation elements of the measure. The bit that's drawing criticism from mainstream conservatives, radical feminists, and others is the part about "gender identity," a fuzzy concept from a legal or scientific perspective and one that provokes strong reactions on all sides.

There are non-panic lines of opposition, too. Libertarians who don't fear fading gender norms and who fully desire to see social equality for all people can still see some causes for concern in the legislation, which would drastically extend the federal government's prerogative to intervene in college life, micromanage private business exchanges, and punish disfavored groups or companies, among other things.

The mandate to monitor "equality" and civil rights across the nation has experienced some alarming mission creep. In addition to investigating corrupt police departments, the feds in recent years have started policing how college kids can talk to each other, launched lengthy investigations of professors whom students disagree with, targeted adult sex workers with stings under the guise of going after human trafficking, and sporadically demanded that businesses owners violate their own religious beliefs.

The Real Stakes

"Every American should be treated with dignity and respect, but our laws need to protect the Constitutionally guaranteed rights that we have," the Alliance Defending Freedom's Greg Baylor said on the Christian Broadcasting Network. If this bill passes, "we will see a proliferation of instances where Christians and others are being coerced to violate their beliefs in order to comply with such a law," he warned.

At least that much is exceedingly likely. The bill specifically states that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act "shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under" the Equality Act, nor "provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement" of it.

While the worst and most paranoid interpretations of this bill are pure culture war pageantry, there are definite threats to religious and academic freedom. And there are legitimate uncertainties about what legislation like this would mean for the sorts of sex/gender-segregated spaces, services, programs, opportunities, and the like that people of all political persuasions support—the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, women-only co-working spaces, scholarship opportunities that exclude men, and so much more.

Perhaps most worrying is that with the provisions extending to the internet, the bill could potentially serve as a backdoor to regulating social media.

Discrimination and harassment are fuzzy legal terms. The Obama administration interpreted them to mean activity that was neither severe nor pervasive. That sort of logic applied to online arenas, with a concept as nascent and shifting as gender identity, could lead to some serious censorship problems. And not just for those who think only bigots and Nazis have anything to fear.

We've seen similar policies from digital platforms and from schools come down hard on people fighting against oppression by failing to consider context, sarcasm, hyperbole, or any of the other elements that power online speech. Remember the "men are trash" fiascos? Remember every other day on Twitter?

Do you think that Trump and his Justice Department wouldn't relish opportunities like those?

Then again, maybe this is all for show.

"The Equality Act has the feel of a get-out-the-vote effort aimed at LGBT voters," as Reason's Scott Shackford put it. He suggests Democrats rallying behind the bill may not be "about changing the law so much as getting Republicans on record about LGBT issues in advance of a heated general election."

Politicians may really and truly care about equality, but they tend to care about politics more. A less expansive bill, aimed at things like employment and housing discrimination, "very well could be passable," Shackford noted in March. Instead, we've got the 2019 Equality Act, which seems almost deliberately written to provoke widespread opposition.

Ultimately, the House's Equality Act bill contains too many loopholes that give authoritarians on either side too much room to grow.

NEXT: Youth Unemployment Is Down, but Are Young People Actually Working?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

221 responses to “With the Equality Act, Congressional Democrats Want To Redefine 'Sex' To Include Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation

  1. “The bit that’s drawing criticism from mainstream conservatives, radical feminists, and others is the part about ‘gender identity,’ a fuzzy concept from a legal or scientific perspective and one that provokes strong reactions on all sides.”

    Actually, gender identity is a scientifically rigorous concept. People are whatever gender they identify as, whether it’s male or female or non-binary. It really is that simple. Chromosomes and anatomy are entirely irrelevant.

    I look forward to today’s Scott Shackford article explaining this. Because apparently some hateful science-denying bigots still don’t get it.

    #ILoveScience

    1. You forgot the /sarc tag

      1. His name is the /sarc tag.

        However, this one is too close to actual existing argument for effective satire…

        1. If you can call it an argument. I’m not seeing any support for the scientific rigor claim.

        2. Yeah, OBL thinks he’s being sarcastic and funny. But he’s not very good at it.

          1. He has one trick and it is getting pretty stale.

            1. I don’t know. I still find him entertaining. He’s worth reading because every now and then he drops a 10/10.

              For example, I’m at the point now where I don’t bother reading the good reverend’s posts anymore as the entertainment value isn’t there. OBL I still hold in good regard.

              1. Well, no accounting for taste, I guess.

              2. You are the only one who has ever considered OBL entertaining.

                1. OBL is good for a chuckle at least once a day.

                2. Don’t be bitter, OBL is hilarious.
                  …except when he’s scary because the left and parody are rapidly becoming the same thing.

              3. Arty is too repetitive. At least Tony shows some variety in his stupidity.

        3. “this one is too close to actual existing argument…”

          Actually, this is the exact argument made by many of the alphabet soup activists.

    2. Poe’s Law in full effect…

      The party of science… LOL

    3. I have this view about “gender identity:” Show me the scientific test that can discern one “gender identity” from another, and I’ll consider “gender identity” as something that we can discriminate on. Or just tell me (with 95% certainty) what “gender identity” a sleeping person is without using stereotypes (riiiiight?). Until then, it’s very similar to a religious belief, with ritual behaviors, social codes/norms, assertions of faith/belief, and individually variable and personal.

      Apparently “gender identity” truly can’t be KNOWN–only disclosed on an individual basis. It’s worthless as an identifier–and therefore worthless as a discriminator.

      1. And yet, religion is a protected class. So maybe not so hard to do after all?

        1. In what world? You can be fired for being Christian if somebody so wishes to do so. Colorado tried to bankrupt a shop that didn’t do Halloween or gay wedding cakes due to the baker’s belief.

          1. And would that employer that fired a christian be right or wrong (constitutionally) because of it?

            Is it right or wrong (constitutionally) to bankrupt the shop owner for refusing to bake a cake?

            If you think these things are wrong, then you should be in agreement with North that gender identity can be a protected class

            1. 1) Perfectly permissible

              2) The SCOTUS only argues that because they did so with animus against his religious beliefs, it ran afoul of the 1st Amendment. Barring animus, it seems likely that the answer would be no.

              3) Expecting people to protect somebody’s FEELINGS is insanity.

              1. 1) I’d like to see some case law on that.
                2) Close. SCOTUS reamed the CO commission for unequal enforcement (Xtian activists requested anit-gay decorated cakes (Bible verses iirc) from gay-owned bakeries, who refused, and the commis didn’t enforce.
                More importantly, the Masterpiece baker did not refuse to BAKE a cake for the plaintiffs, in fact he said they could buy any cake in the place. He refused to DECORATE a cake in accordance with their wishes, just as he refuses to decorate cakes with Hallowe’en motifs. Artistic expression being protected under 1A, he was within his rights. This avoided the old Civil Rights refusal to serve argument.

        2. Probably still hard, as our laws treat some classes and protections differently than others.

          For race we have decided that separate cannot be equal. For biological sex and facility use, pretty much everybody is comfortable with separate, whether or not it’s equal.

          I am not aware of any equality law in the country that would give standing to a Christian who walked into a mosque and said “you must allow me to have my wedding here, or I will sue you.” “Religious equality” is AOK with separation.

          Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A are allowed to withhold extending benefits to same-sex spouses on religious grounds, but I doubt very seriously they would be allowed to refuse to serve same-sex couples sandwiches or pointless tchotchkes. Or be allowed to refuse benefits to married couples who have brown skin.

          The whole LGBTQ movement would quickly find acceptance with 80+% of the American populace if they only demanded the same kind of “equality” provided to religions.

          1. The whole LGBTQ movement would quickly find acceptance with 80+% of the American populace if they only demanded the same kind of “equality” provided to religions.

            (A) We’re on that trend line anyway.
            (B) Yeah, the Mattachine Society tried being “Mr. Nice Gay”. Didn’t work.
            (C) The vast majority of laws that expanded non-discrimination laws to include gay people did not expand the definition of public accommodation. So yes, the “equality” being asked for was the same as that given to religions (which in every single case, already received those same protections).

            For that matter, even the Equality Act, which does expand the meaning of public accommodation, does so for all protected classes. So religion would be just as protected as gays.

          2. chick-fil-a can do anything it wants.

            They could serve those chicken sandwiches wrapped in pictures of Stalin and Mao and have the employees wear red armbands and I would still buy that stuff.

            Anyone who wants to ban them has either never eaten one or wouldn’t know a perfect chicken sandwich from old shoe leather.

          3. I have always been fine with people being The Gay personally, and in favor of equal treatment… But the level of crazy coming out of Big Gay (like Big Oil but gayer!) has made me start being against all their BS. They are DEMANDING people LOVE their weird lifestyle, and publicly say so all the time, or else you’re literally Hitler, AND they want to make it illegal now.

            It’s BS. As I said in my stand alone post below, I’m kind of a weirdo. The thing is I don’t demand society accept the shit I’m weird about. That would be wrong. I don’t care if men wanna dress like women… But demanding I talk about how awesome it is, and that I can’t say it’s weird is BS. It IS weird. It’s abnormal. It’s not BAD per se, but it’s not normal. I see no need society needs to bend over to accept my weird quirks, and neither should trannys or The Gays. I wear my freakishness as a badge of honor, why can’t they?

            1. Ditto.

        3. “religion is a protected class”
          Come out as an evangelical if you’re employed by GLAAD, Planned Parenthood or Google, and tell me how protected you are.

        4. I have a similar problem with religion and other “protected class” characteristics that are less objective/obvious–and I think both are similarly “hard to do.”

          Just because it’s been established as a “protected class” doesn’t mean I think it’s a good idea. I think it’s a BAD idea exactly because religion and gender are defined very broadly, very individually (“genderqueer,” for example) and very internally and subjectively. Race and Sex have external identifiers that are MORE obvious instigators for discrimination–though obviously race has greater variability than sex does (we can get chromosomal with sex for the vast expanse of the population, with extremely rare exceptions that might need to be dealt with individually).

      2. I assume rifling through their pockets and wallet, and e-stalking them, is also impermissible?

        In which case, there are still some brain analysis tools we have, but they can only be done post mortem.

        That said, you also can’t scientifically know someone’s race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion that way. Most of that stuff is informed by what they tell you, documentation, and cultural standards (even race. There are many people in America who are “black”, who become “white” while on vacation in Brazil). Honestly, sex, pregnancy status, and some (but not all) disabilities are about the only protected characteristics that you can tell “scientifically”.

        So that clearly isn’t the standard we use for non-discrimination law.

        1. So that clearly isn’t the standard we use for non-discrimination law.

          He could have multiple standards and be pointing out that it fails to rise above some exceedingly low bar(s).

        2. Many of those items are testable or are documented. However, gender identity can be fluid. I’m not saying it changes minute to minute, mind you, but all of those other items don’t change for mental, hormonal, environmental, or personal reasons. They just are purely factual statements.

      3. The stereotype of male/female is a useful method in attracting a mate.

        In other words, if kids are wanted, observing stereotypical presentation of your sex is better than causing confusion.

        On a societal level, encouraging confusion leads to Russian roulette in mating rituals.

        1. On a societal level, encouraging confusion leads to Russian roulette in mating rituals.

          Assuming attraction isn’t the only mating interaction to be had between mates and peers, I think you mean Polish firing squad rather than Russian roulette. A Polish firing squad allows for any number of participants greater than 1 to wind up gunning down any number of partners intentionally or not while Russian roulette is conceptually a one-person game.

    4. Chromosomes and anatomy are entirely irrelevant. . . .
      Oh but chromosomes do make a difference especially when a person in a man’s body identifies as a woman. These trans-women have more testosterone than non-trans women which will give them added advantage for some time (years maybe) after they start transitioning.
      Now I can see a problem with that since there is a push to have equality between the genders (male and female). In fields of work or sports where strength and speed and endurance being a trans-woman would give the trans an unfair advantage which will could cause the selection of a genetic woman to be overlooked in favor of a trans-woman. This could, if sufficient numbers of trans-women are enough, that no non-trans-woman would be found in that job category.

    5. “Actually, gender identity is a scientifically rigorous concept.”

      Wow. Just, WOW. That is some incredible organic fertilizer right there. You normally have to clean the stables at a race track to find that much horse dung.

    6. What a completely stupid and uneducated statement. There is absolutely zero scientific basis to gender identity. Where the hell are you getting you ridiculous information from. If someone identifies as a ‘dog’, it doesn’t make them a dog any more than a man or woman identifying as the opposite sex.
      You really need to get out of your restricted bubble because you sound more and more pathetic with each comment you make.

      1. Hey now, I identify as a transgender lesbian gerbil… And if you don’t accept my identity, you’re a bigot and a Nazi. So shape up or be sent to the gulag buddy!

        1. “I identify as a transgender lesbian gerbil…”

          I always knew.

  2. Many on the left have begun to eat their own, and I wonder if this is a further example. Take destroying women’s sports, for instance. If a male athlete can enter any female competition simply by identifying as female (even for just the duration of the event), women’s sport is effectively over. I can’t help wondering if that isn’t the plan on the part of SJWs who view more traditional feminists (2nd wave ones) as dinosaurs.

    1. Under these identity politics, the idea is to establish a means to destroy anyone at any time who dissents.

      The Lefties cannot afford to leave areas untouched by their brand of politics.

      Sports, school, business, family life, religion, medicine, hobbies…. They all have to be covered.

    2. Men will not have to identify as women for this.
      The entire concept of “women’s sports” and “men’s sports” will be illegal.
      There will only be “sports”.
      No sex designated locker rooms, no sex designated anything. Colleges will have to combine all currently sex segregated teams, and decide which surplus coaches to fire. Pull up the “ladies tees” in golf, pull the sex labels off the locker rooms, who knows what.
      The really big lawsuit will be over this: do all participants have to wear a jock, or can no participant wear a jock?
      Equality uber alles.
      Welcome to the revolution to all sexes, genders, or any other fantasies.

      1. But it’s all worth it if it makes less than 1% of the population feel a little bit better about themselves.
        But I doubt it goes that far. There are a lot of people heavily personally invested in women’s sports.

        1. Even then, I doubt what he’s saying will actually happen. It may be the plain reading of the law, but what will actually happen is it will be enforced awkwardly and selectively and create a situation where people are not quite certain what is allowed or not.

          This is likely a worse scenario than the one given above.

          1. Yeah, that’s the real problem. It would be another vaguely defined weapon to be used selectively against political undesirables.

          2. Even then, I doubt what he’s saying will actually happen. It may be the plain reading of the law, but what will actually happen is it will be enforced awkwardly and selectively and create a situation where people are not quite certain what is allowed or not.

            Just like the CRA is now!

            And yes, it will make things worse. That’s what it’s designed to do–because these fucking Americans just can’t be roused to class war.

        2. But it’s all worth it if it may makes less than 1% of the population feel a little bit better about themselves.

          When we legalized gay marriage, the attempted teen suicide rate was cut by some phenomenal percent. Now, the actual suicide rate didn’t drop appreciably and the rate (self-reported) at which attempts dropped *from* was something on the order of 5 attempts per student (het or not) per year *and* we still hear that LGBTQ people are still more prone to be marginalized and attempt suicide because of that marginalization. But legalizing gay marriage totally turned the bend on attempted teen suicides. I’m confident there’s no psychological difference and certainly no policy differences between gay marriage and trans equality so we should expect the same result from this legislation; much the same way the CRA effectively ended racism in this country.

          1. It’s far more likely that people afflicted with ‘alternate’ sexuality have more problems with depressions due to their own internal differences regardless of external issues of same sex marriage or any other such nonsense. Transexuals certainly have severe psychological problems.

            1. Transexuals certainly have severe psychological problems.

              I was being sarcastic. They certainly have psychological problems. Whether they do or not, supporters will fudge or make up numbers to generate whatever happily-ever-after narrative fits the bill.

      2. If this happens, I think the schools will find a way around it by dividing the sports into “tiers” based on weight or body mass, similar to the boxing classes. Tier A will just happen to have more boys than girls, Tier B vice versa.

        And I’ve always said this kerfluffle over restroom/locker room choices will eventually lead to unisex restrooms with completely private toilet or shower stalls (certainly an end result if this Equality Act is in effect). It’ll cost property owners a fortune, but such is the price of progress I guess.

        1. Or everyone can just get used to open showers and lots and lots of public embarrassment.
          All a business is required to do by this law is replace “men’s” and “ladies” with “restroom” or “showers”.

        2. “price of progress” Your fantasy, we’ll stay out of it.

        3. It is far more likely that the schools will stop all contact sports for fear of the girls getting badly injured. Either that, or parents will stop their female children from participating.
          Alternatively, schools in various states will defy the law.
          This will completely destroy women sports and America will lose out on many international women’s sports event including the Olympics. The negative repercussions from this ridiculous law designed to appease less than 1% of the population will be devastating.

        4. Even at similar body mass, total weight, etc boys outperform girls. We’re simply biologically superior in a fuck ton of ways. Girls have their advantages too in some areas, but for the most part men are superior… And this is what drives them insane.

          This isn’t just physically either BTW. Men actually have a far higher instance of geniuses than women, and retards. But we actually have a higher average IQ… All the “we have the same average IQ” nonsense is because they use data from the early teenage years which is the ONLY time men and women are at parity… Pre puberty men win. Women hit puberty first, and we’re the same for a few years. After boys hit puberty we pass them and never look back.

          Women simply can’t accept that men, on average, are the superior and dominant sex in almost all ways. Lying to women about this is especially evil IMO. Women accepted and were fine with this when we lived in a sane world… But if you think you actually are equal, and are being mistreated, that’s a whole different thing than not being as awesome and just accepting it.

          1. For most of human history, men were much more likely to be killed than women.
            Hunting, fights, wars, work, etc – man’s domain, and much more dangerous.
            It wouldn’t surprise me to see such accelerated evolution reflected in modern genetics.
            It’s cool though – progressivism is all about “correcting” natural “error”

            1. All the stuff I said, and more, if scientifically verifiable. The stats are always just suppressed/not talked about.

              Men are basically the superior sex. And now that women have been lied to to believe this is not the case, they feel cheated. It’s easy to accept that you can’t be in the NBA if you accept that being 5’5″ means you’re not good for playing basketball… But if you’re told your whole life you’re just as good, and you’re being discriminated against, it’s a lot easier to get mad about not making it into the NBA. Women used to be fine with accepting their place in the world, now they’re resentful.

              I can only think of like 3 or 4 things men lose to women on. Better verbal skills, both spoken and written. More flexible. Higher pain tolerance. Better “emotional intelligence,” AKA reading people. I’m sure there are a few others I’m forgetting… But men basically take the cake on every single other thing.

      3. Or we can just kick the shit out of these idiot progtards and say ‘no more’. Someone needs to start acting like a fucking adult in this country and put a stop to their inane bullshit.

        1. i like this plan.

      4. Don’t forget about dorm rooms.

      5. Of course it will all meld into one. It will turn into something like sports car racing. Rather than just letting corvettes run directly against Porsches, balance of performance rules will be applied in some entirely subjective way.

    3. If a male athlete can enter any female competition simply by identifying as female (even for just the duration of the event), women’s sport is effectively over. I can’t help wondering if that isn’t the plan on the part of SJWs who view more traditional feminists (2nd wave ones) as dinosaurs.

      No, they’d just demand lower physical standards and “gender” quotas for traditionally male teams.

      Which is fine with me. I’d love to see a STRONK ACKSHUN GRRRRRRL get slammed into a coma by a 250-pound linebacker after making a catch, get clocked in the noodle by a lacrosse stick, or get posterized on a dunk by a basketball player with 75 pounds and greater hops. The salt from people in denial that WNBA players and the women’s national soccer team are really not all that athletic compared to high school males would be fantastic.

      1. OK. But most people supporting gender equality laws don’t. They just want to keep pretending that women’s sports are just as good as men’s without having to prove it.
        Which is why I don’t think it will go that far. People know, even if they won’t admit it, that separate women’s sports exist for a reason.

        1. The NBA doesn’t really care if the WNBA lives or dies. NFL, MLB, and NHL were wise enough to not bankroll money pit women divisions.

          The NBA is convinced, rightly, that women simply would not be able to qualify to play for any team.

          1. NFL, MLB, and NHL were wise enough to not bankroll money pit women divisions.

            Insult the LFL like this again and you and I are gonna have words.

          2. Indeed. In powerlifting, as a male, I’m well above average, but not really exceptional. Yet no woman can be as strong as I can.

            1. The most chronically hormone-addled cis-women are entry-level male collegiate athlete levels of strength and fitness. 30 and 40 yr. old women who’ve been training since they were teenagers and who’ve openly admitted to using steroids for decades have lifts that virtually every college campus has at least a dozen men, with minimal training and no performance enhancement, can perform.

              Marion Jones once mused about how incompetent the USADA investigation was. She noted that when investigating BALCO, investigators found notes in a calendar that said “MJ 100m” followed by sprint times and were asking her where she was and what her split times were on those dates. She mocked their incompetence because, despite some dates overlapping with races she ran and with no knowledge of who MJ actually was, she could tell them the times in the notebook were male. Marion Jones, triple gold medalist*, categorically said no woman, juiced or not, could run the times indicated.

              *revoked for doping

          3. Women’s pro sports and their commercial viability are really irrelevant to the discussion. Amateur women’s sports are big and a lot of people put a lot of energy into them. Those people aren’t going to let all they have done go for some SJW feel-good bullshit.

            1. They seem quite happy to do so and girls are terrified of being locked out of colleges for protesting.

              Feminists. by and large, seem supportive of the whole trans movement, which will end up killing their entire raison d’etre.

              1. Feminists. by and large, seem supportive of the whole trans movement, which will end up killing their entire raison d’etre.

                Optimist. This is how they will recruit and purity test men and shun the appropriate women. You don’t really support feminism unless you cut your dick off and denounce women who, science will inevitably demonstrate, are really just closeted trans males.

              2. Well, people tend to be supportive of things until it fucks their personal world up.

                I know a LOT of progs in Seattle who have lost their shit because of the insane handling of local government issues… Like the homelessness bullshit, where they let junkies shoot heroin in public, shit on the sidewalk, and steal your shit… And do nothing. I’ve met more “lifelong Democrats who will only be voting for Republicans going forward” in the last few years than my whole life. Women may do the same shit over the tranny crap when it really hits them personally.

      2. They did the same thing with the military.

        Lower standards for all military members rather than women having to achieve the traditional standards.

        Makes a weaker military. Lots of women have the smarts to make the military more capable but they cannot fight as good as most men.

        1. Lots of women have the smarts to make the military more capable but they cannot fight as good as most men.

          Too bad the military itself isn’t exactly known for selectively admitting only the best and the brightest. So, we get the military industrial complex meets female-dominated consumerism, nanny helicopter warfare, the matriarchy. We can’t be the worlds’ policemen but we can certainly swoop in, take everyone’s toys away, scream at them to behave, and then go back watching soaps.

        2. Honestly, even the presence of women fucks up the groove in most situations, because they’re women and they ruin the fun and comradery. If they should be in at all it should be desk jockey roles, nursing/doctoring, and very few of them at that.

    4. >>>the plan on the part of SJWs

      they have no plan it’s how the wind blows period

  3. The underlying vagueness of the bill comes from the fact that there’s no such thing as gender. The law would be unenforceable because it does not exist. Gender is an academic invention from a degenerate named John Money who mutilated, tortured, and eventually lead to the suicide of David Reimer as well as his brother, Brian Reimer. These are the sorts of sycophants who invented the nebulous concept of gender and unsurprisingly, from mental illness comes further mental illness.

    1. I’m familiar with the story (thank you, L&O SVU), but was unaware he started the use of gender as a pseudo-proxy for sex.

    2. Actually Money’s notion that gender identity was entirely learned (and therefore could be changed at will) is much more in line with the current right than the left. He would have been a proponent of “pray away the gay” types of solutions

      1. Gender identity is not the same thing as sexual orientation. The Right does not think that gender fluidity is a thing.

        1. The Right does think that mental illness, (e.g, “gender fluidity”) exists and there’s an epidemic of it.

        2. I actually do think that the Right understands that some people are more masculine, and others are more feminine, and that we use those behaviors in malleable, varied ways to react to our surroundings. What the Right resists is the assertion that “gender” or “gender identity” is entirely unmoored from sex (or as Obama said, gender identity IS sex, via Title IX). There IS a significant relationship between the two (though not pure or absolute) –and this is the view of both the Right and Science.

          The Right sees the EXTREME expressions of the opposite gender (contra sex–extreme feminization of men, for example, or extreme masculinization of women) as posing, actions of rebellion, attention-seeking, or not genuine–and changeable.

        3. That’s because gender itself isn’t a thing. You can’t be fluid for something that doesn’t exist. There’s no such thing as “identifying” as anything. You can be the most effeminate man on the planet and you’re still a man. The cultural or “gendered” aspects of manhood, like strength, are stereotypes primarily based on sex traits, like men being taller, larger, more bone density, potential to develop musculature, etc. Arbitrary ideas of gender, like acting a certain way or having certain interests, are bullshit. Men are XY (and certain variations like supermales) who were designed to have functional testes and viable sperm. Women are XX (variations exist as well) who were designed to have functional ovaries and viable eggs. I collect plushies, I love cute things, and I can be very emotional at times. That has no bearing on my sex and the idea that I could or should identify as something else because of it is absurd. Why would such a thing impact my sexuality in the first place? At this point, people are just brainwashed about gender. They think it matters because everyone told them it does and nobody explained how utterly meaningless the concept is.

          1. It mattered because “sex” was a dirty word, so instead of referring to boy/girl, male/female as sex, it was termed gender – which only exists in linguistics.

            Should it be any wonder that untethering the language from biology should have resulted in this?

        4. And what about transgender? Because that’s not the same as gender fluidity

          1. They’re the same in that neither exists.

          2. IMO they’re a very small subset of people with a biological abnormality in their brains. Some may also just be crazy attention seekers, but I do believe many/most have a brain wiring difference, as do gays.

            But who cares? They’re still a dude. They may WANT to be a woman… But they’re not, and never will be. We should be polite, to a point, with this as it’s not super harmful if it doesn’t get out of control… But the 99.5% of society that identifies are their gender doesn’t need to bend over backwards for them.

          3. Transgenderism and gender fluidity obviously exist on some kind of meta-spectrum, my man. It’s false binaries all the way down.

      2. He would have been a proponent of “pray away the gay” types of solutions

        Who gives a shit about reality in any way, shape, or form as long as we can rest easy at night knowing both sides are equally wrong!

  4. Gender identity, how people want to behave sexually, is a choice that they can change whenever and however they desire.

    Sex is immutable. The two will never be equal.

    I will never respect your bad choices in life.

  5. This is an imposition of a radical ideology and theology as well as quack science that will criminalize dissent. It is a denial of the physiological differences between men and women that will have deleterious effects on women.

    In terms of sex and gender this is saying 2+2= what ever the Woke Party says it equals.

    1. Furthermore, Libertarians have legitimate concerns but other people who object fear. Piss off with that loaded rhetoric ENB.

    2. That is the problem. Whatever it should be called and however it should be treated, transgenderism does appear to be a real phenomenon. But it is not well understood at all and trying to force it into law without understanding the consequences is foolish and irresponsible, even if you think anti-discrimination laws applying to private parties are a good idea.

      1. transgenderism does appear to be a real phenomenon. But it is not well understood at all and trying to force it into law without understanding the consequences is foolish and irresponsible,

        which is why Congress is all over it.

      2. “transgenderism does appear to be a real phenomenon”

        Yep.
        It’s a mental disorder.
        Like psychosis

        1. Honestly, I think they have biologically defective brain wiring, much like gay people. There is enough evidence on regular gay folks that shows their brain scans are somewhere in between their sex and the opposite sex. I would imagine trannies are the same.

          It’s a weird thing, but IMO not a HUGE deal if they don’t demand the whole world bends over backwards for them. It’s almost like being too tall, or too short, or too freckly… It may be a bit odd, but it’s not a huge deal unless somebody makes a huge deal out of it. They’re trying to make a huge deal out of it, therein lies the problem.

          1. The fact that transgenders have different brain scans is why many alphabet soup activists say, in all seriousness, that despite genetics, anatomy, and physiology, this means that transgenders are biologically the sex with which they identify. I’ve argued with several over this, and seen “scientific” articles that say this very thing. There’s no arguing with stupid.

    3. Well there are some real (if vary rare) edge cases to deal with.

      Persons born with ambiguous genitalia.

      Individuals with XXY chromasomes.

      Human chimeras: The reverse of identical twins. Instead of 1 embryo splitting and becoming two, two embryos (fraternal twins) merge and become 1. Yielding 1 person with different DNA in different parts of their body. And yes this does happen and can happen even if the original fraternal twin embryos were different biological genders.

      1. People with genuine sex chromosome anomalies are not the same thing as transgender and they should not be conflated.

        1. Funny thing is most such people are “straight” sexually, and identify as what their seemingly obvious biological sex is.

      2. It’s not just chromosomal anomalies and chimeras that give rise to true intersex individuals. There are also developmental and hormonal anomalies. The most common is when a genetically male baby’s hormones were overwhelmed by the mother’s hormones in the womb. At birth, the doctor may misidentify it as a girl, or not be sure. In some horrific cases, they resorted to surgery to “correct” the problem of ambiguous sex organs by cutting away what didn’t fit the female anatomy, and maybe by continuing to inject female hormones. One doctor published a book claiming that his patient grew up just fine as a girl, even though genetic tests (that didn’t exist at birth) later showed normal boy XY chromosomes – but he was lying or deluded, the kid saw himself as a boy and as an adult was seriously messed up both surgically and psychologically.

        And sometimes hormonal production is just abnormal and doesn’t match the chromosomes. That probably accounts for some transgenders, but more often it’s just psychological. That can be quite real, but when it’s not based in biology, it’s subject to change. If the individual remains convinced they are the other gender through puberty and beyond, there is a point where it’s appropriate to give them hormones to cause a partial sex change, and if they’re still comfortable with that after a few years, sex change surgery. But sex change hormones or surgery on a child is insane. And transgenders should be looking for the “Others” bathroom until the change is complete…

        There’s a medium-distance runner that has smashed all the women’s records. “She” has a face like a man, is flat chested with bulging arm muscles, and married a woman, but the international sports organization still thinks she is a woman. They did DNA testing once, but would not release the results. My guess is that she was a misidentified “intersex” baby, raised as a girl but grew up with the natural testosterone levels of a man because she is actually XY. (Athletes are allowed unlimited testosterone as long as it was produced naturally by their own organs inside them; injecting testosterone and related chemicals is banned.) If she ran as a man, she would never win a race, but she logs times that no one with the physiology of a woman will ever beat. It’s also possible that she is XXY. In any case, it’s not at all fair for “real girls” to have to compete with her.

  6. This bill will never make it past the House.

  7. “In 30 states, LGBTQ Americans do not have the freedom of full equality,”

    What the fuck does that even mean? And don’t ever trust anything that Tammy Baldwin has to say – she is basically the driver of the clown car.

    1. Yeah, which laws don’t apply the same way to trans people as to anyone else?
      Seems they want parity with other protected classes, not equality in a more general sense.

    2. What the fuck does that even mean?

      First, they came for the English language…

      1. First, they came for the English language…

        And conservatives and a few liberty-minded liberals said, “Hey! Stop fucking with the language!”

      2. An NPR reporter today used the term “Latinx family”. I couldn’t help but laugh, like the family was originally from a fictional place called Latinx America where every member of the family is both genders.

  8. How about we forget about all these categories and treat people as individuals. Equal treatment for all. Anyone ever heard of that?

    1. But if we have equal treatment for all who gets to play the victim card?

      1. Dogs and cats

      2. Whatever new identity can take the situation hostage.

        The idea is to destroy rules that we all play by so we can know what to expect ahead of time.

        The Lefties want you to get so frustrated that you give up. They used that tactic for decades to get incremental policies to the point we are at now.

  9. The Dems have went full scale insane. Instead or trying to end the war on drugs, curb military spending, reining in the NSA and fixing the S.S., Medicare mess this is where they plant their flag. Then we have the ‘New Green Deal’ . Their freshmen are National Socialist . Some are Marxist, let’s hope these people never take the house ,senate and presidency any time soon.

    1. They have gone full totalitarian. They want no escape routes.

      1. +100

        1. And grammatically superior.

    2. Yup. Of all the issues that used to matter to real liberals, they’re doing this stupid shit instead of pushing for the decent things. Fuck progs and “liberals” in America today.

  10. “any train service, bus service, car service, taxi service, airline service, station, depot, or other place of or establishment that provides transportation service.”

    Please provide an example of ze, sie, hir, or co not being allowed on a bus.

  11. “Do you think that Trump and his Justice Department wouldn’t relish opportunities like those? Then again, maybe this is all for show.”

    Second sentence first… of course this is all for show. Duh. Every time they trot out these over-the-top, absolutely indefensible hardline extremist bills it is all for show – whether that is left wing stuff like this or socon stuff like partial birth abortion bans. They want to draw battle lines and get the other side on record so they can run ads during political campaigns. “Republican Candidate X voted to deny women’s rights!!” “Democrat Candidate Y voted to allow babies to be mutilated and killed!!”

    Remember, the North Carolina bathroom kerfuffle was all initiated by a local government who passed an unneeded and unwanted law requiring all bathrooms to be TG friendly – something that wasn’t really an issue until that moment. The intention of that law was to elicit a response from the other side that could be used against them…. a goal that was achieved and surpassed by far.

    That is all this is about from a legislative point of view, obviously.

    Now, to the first sentence…. have you been studying your Soave? Trump has a mean tweet game, but exactly what about the Trump justice department makes you think they would “relish those opportunities?” When have they actually moved to restrict the media like you guys keep whinging about? Their predecessors certainly did a lot of things to attack the media – including actually spying on journalists. And we’ve recently seen state level Democrats doing more of the same. But not the Trump administration, AFAIK.

    It is a pretty good argument to make – don’t give the government tools that might be used against you – but at the same time, the team that is pushing these laws actually does intend to use them against their political enemies, as they have loudly and quite publicly stated. So a little more context on that might be in order.

    1. Remember Trump’s answer? They should use whatever bathroom they want. He likes to troll, not be trolled.

  12. “An individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.”
    Good. I’m so tired of having to flash my tackle to the bathroom bouncer at Chili’s for admission to the men’s room.
    Anyhow, Rob Misek is right on and it would be hard to put that toothpaste back in the tube.
    Shackford, too – this will be laced into a loop of sound bites for campaigns for elections to come.

  13. The bit about pregnancy being treated equally is actually a really, really big deal.

    First, many (if not most) health plans treat pregnancy differently. They have a completely different copayment schedule than other conditions, usually including all visits in the same “pregnancy” bucket. That would go away.

    Second, religious based health cooperatives are squarely in the crosshairs. They often have morality based clauses, including not covering pregnancies out of wedlock. That’s a big change being forced on the only low cost healthcare coverage option left.

    And lastly, this could be a backdoor to any opt-out loopholes for avoiding covering abortions. It might even be a back door to force all OBGYNs to offer abortion services. That could be a really, really big deal. (whether pro-choice or not, there are not a lot of OBGYN doctors who are at all interested in performing abortions. It kinda goes against their brand.)

    1. But pregnancy is an elective condition (well, except in Alabama), so short of complications I don’t see why insurance should cover it at all.

      1. Ok… then I want all my money back from health insurance and only give me catastrophic insurance.

        Now what doctor can I go to?

      2. That interpretation would open up another big can of worms. For example would injuries from a car accident be “elective” because I elected to get in the car and drive?

        1. That is a false equivalency. Pregnancy is a known, expected, often welcome result of (heterosexual) sexual intercourse. And if one wishes to engage in sexual intercourse without getting pregnant, there are several options that effectively reduce the risk of pregnancy to near zero. When a married couple desires to have children and the woman voluntarily becomes pregnant, requiring that pregnancy to be covered by insurance is akin to requiring your homeowners’ insurance to cover repainting your house for purely aesthetic reasons.

  14. I view the whole Trans Rights spasm as proof that the political Left is approaching Peak Idiocy. There may, one day, be a procedure for changing from one sex to the other. And when that day comes, facilitating the move from one to the other by people who believe they were born in the ‘wrong body’ may be a good thing to do. But as matters stand, ‘gender reassignment surgery’ is a cruel fraud. And the people who facilitate it are opportunists, ghouls, and fools.

    1. There is no peak idiocy. There will always be a better idiot. It grows exponentially, not logistically.

    2. No, it would not be a good thing, because it would be surrendering to sexism. “Transgenderism” and the idea that one can be in the “wrong body” is based on the belief that some thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are permissible only for men or for women, and that those who have the “wrong” thoughts, feelings, and behaviors must be corrected so that their minds match their outward sexual presentation and genitalia. That belief is known as “sexism”. In the past, sexism was enforced by trying to forcibly impose the “correct” thoughts, feelings, and behaviors on child who didn’t conform. Now, medical technology has made it possible to attempt changing the body to match the mind—the same goal and motivation as traditional sexism; just a different technique for enforcing it.

      We should strive instead for sexual liberation. Let all men and all women be themselves, regardless of whether they conform to sexist stereotypes and compulsory sex roles.

      1. This is indeed what bugs me most about genderism. If it affected just a few individuals, well, there’ll always be deluded persons, unfortunately. But the effect on society seems to be a big setback for sex liberation. And what bugs me most about that is that most of the people you’d think you could most count on to be for sex liberation don’t see this, and therefore are on the wrong side.

      2. The reality you want to ignore is that ON AVERAGE all those stereotypical differences are real.

        There are effeminate men and masculine women, but on average men and women have different traits. It’s okay to be an outlier, but to deny that there IS a norm is BS IMO. That’s leftist nonsense.

    3. “I view the whole Trans Rights spasm as proof that the political Left is approaching Peak Idiocy.”

      AOC & Co: Hold my responsibly sourced, fair trade, sustainably produced chardonnay.

  15. What about fetishes?

    1. i only date jewish cowboys

      1. Don’t do much dating then?

  16. Thanks to the democrat’s courage I can now self identity as a gay, bi-sexual, transgender, tri-racial, lesbian, Muslim, homosexual, hermaphrodite.

    1. You couldn’t before?

      1. He couldn’t get into Harvard on that trait alone.

    2. Thanks to the democrat’s courage I can now self identity as a gay, bi-sexual, transgender, tri-racial, lesbian, Muslim, homosexual, hermaphrodite.

      You’re missing the real trick (I’ve said before); my wife and I identify as both a cis-het and trans gay couple and the legal recognition of our 2-4 marriages is our human right.

      If you think those conservative bigots at Chik-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby, as well as my employer, are going to get away with criminally refusing to cover both our maternity and paternity leaves, over-the-counter contraception (both sexes for both partners), and permit any and all bathroom needs we may require, you’ve got another thing coming.

      The really real trick is going to see if we can either anull/divorce marriages that didn’t exist or perpetuate marriages across couples selectively: “Trans gay us is still married but cis het us divorced three years ago.” Then rather than being capped at 4, employers and the public at large will be on the hook for 2^n accommodations for every individual.

      1. and permit

        Sorry, accommodate.

  17. So what’s new. Our politicians care not a bit about us, or the Constitution, but votes and denigrating the other side’s voters. In short, they suck.

  18. […] With the Equality Act, Democrats want to redefine sex to include gender identity and sexual orientation. […]

  19. Well, it could certainly end the criminalization of male-to-female sexting.

    “your Honor, I felt like a woman when I texted Susy a picture of my reproductive organs.”

    1. Being the same sex/gender as the person you’re sexually harassing hasn’t been a legal defense for decades.

      1. Being the same sex/gender as the person you’re sexually harassing hasn’t been a legal defense for decades.

        That’s why the bill *must* pass!

  20. […] trying to kill religious freedom in the marketplace. However, as I understand the situation, the changes they wish to make regarding gender vs gender identity are so poorly defined legally that they would essentially make the bill so overbearing it essentially becomes […]

  21. Libertarians who don’t fear fading gender norms

    If trans-activists were so open-minded about “fading gender norms” they wouldn’t insist that anyone who doesn’t conform perfectly to their gender’s stereotypes must be irreversibly mutilated

    1. That is a strange contradiction within the trans activist movement. It seems to me that, putting aside the “gender fluid/ non-binary” stuff, which just seems like a relabeling of being weird, transgender people are saying that gender is an important and immutable aspect of a person. They just don’t believe it is always tied to biological sex. All the non-binary stuff is actually largely opposed to the whole notion that transgender is a real, fixed characteristic, whether they notice or acknowledge that fact or not.

      1. Liberal ideology being self-contradictory? Say it ain’t so…

        1. That’s what happens when you take something that should be carefully examined through biology and psychology and turn it into an ideological issue.

      2. That is a strange contradiction within the trans activist movement.

        No it’s not.

        You gotta remember, gender identity is a spectrum too.

        On one end, you have cisgender folks. This is where most people are. On the far end you have transgender folks. In between you have non-binary, gender-fluid, and gender-queer folks.

        A spectrum that includes cis, trans and non-binary people is no more a “contradiction” then a spectrum that includes blue, red and purple.

        1. You missed the point. The contradiction is between the ideas that “gender” is an innate and immutable characteristic, such that “transgender” people cannot choose to live as their actual sex; and that “gender identity” is a choice and we are free to place ourselves anywhere on the spectrum we wish.

          1. Yeah, no. That’s a strawman.

            1. No, it isn’t. It’s what the “gender identity” proponents themselves say.

              1. Maybe not directly, but it’s the obvious consequence of saying we can’t question someones assertion of their gender identity.

  22. “An individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.”

    I can understand sex segregation.

    But what is the rationale for segregation based on one’s internal feelz?

    1. That is the question. There are logical reasons for segregating on the basis of sex. One can disagree with them, but they are rational. There is absolutely no reason to segregate on the basis of gender identity. Maybe eliminating sex segregation by making it impossible is the actual goal here with all the imposition on women’s privacy that entails.

      1. There is absolutely no reason to segregate on the basis of gender identity.

        How about keeping men like Michael Hughes out of the women’s restroom?

        1. Segregating by sex would accomplish that.

        2. Under this law you could not keep out a male who looks like Michael Hughes out of a women’s room if he claimed to be a transwoman. Even if that person was leering at the females in the space.

          How a person looks or what sort of genitals they actually possess has anything to do with an enforceable claim of gender identity.

          1. Under this law you could not keep out a male who looks like Michael Hughes out of a women’s room if he claimed to be a transwoman. Even if that person was leering at the females in the space.

            So once again, we’re back to punishing LGBT folks because straight men are assholes.

            1. I’m quite sure the vast majority of women object to men in the ladies’ room, regardless of whether or not they are straight, gay, or assholes.

            2. Are you not feeling special enough, escher?
              Too bad
              Grow up

  23. A less expansive bill, aimed at things like employment and housing discrimination, “very well could be passable,” Shackford noted in March.

    Then Shackford is an idiot.

    If McConnell and Senate Republicans actually wanted to pass such a bill, they could draft it themselves and pass it in the Senate to do so. Heck, they could have done so under Obama for the years they controlled the House and Senate.

    The simple fact is that contrary to Shackfords and Nolan’s optimism, Congressional Republicans are not opposing the Equality Act because it is too “expansive”. They are opposing it because of it’s premise.

    1. +100

  24. The mandate to monitor “equality” and civil rights across the nation has experienced some alarming mission creep.

    Who coulda guessed this would happen? Oh, just about every libertarian and anybody else who has the slightest idea of how government works.

    1. Who coulda guessed this would happen?

      Scalia and he’s been dead for 3 yrs.

      1. +1

      2. he’s been dead for 3 yrs.

        So has Ginsburg, but that hasn’t shut her up.

  25. “”The Equality Act has the feel of a get-out-the-vote effort aimed at LGBT voters,” as Reason’s Scott Shackford put it. He suggests Democrats rallying behind the bill may not be “about changing the law so much as getting Republicans on record about LGBT issues in advance of a heated general election.””

    Frankly, I thought that Obama’s “Dear Colleague” letter about transgendered college students, issued in 2015, was also an election year tactic aimed at creating a wedge issue for 2016. Little did he expect Trump would suck the oxygen away.

  26. It’s disturbing to me that within the span of a decade I’ve apparently gone from socially liberal to becoming a SoCon monster. And my positions haven’t changed a bit.

  27. Perhaps if they could cite anything more than their fucking feelings, I’d give a rat’s ass what trannies thought of anything.

  28. It, to me, all boils down to this — I do not CARE what you believe.

    But you have zero right to demand I play along.

  29. it’s a bad idea because equality cannot be legislated.

  30. Libertarians who don’t fear fading gender norms and who fully desire to see social equality for all people can still see some causes for concern in the legislation, which would drastically extend the federal government’s prerogative to intervene in college life, micromanage private business exchanges, and punish disfavored groups or companies, among other things.

    “Some causes for concern”! Godalmightydamn I should hope so. What the hell use is libertarianism if it’s parishoners aren’t up in arms against this entire stupid assault on reality and free association?

    Jaysus wept.

  31. How about the Federal government sticks to it’s defined constitutional functions.The only equality it should involved in is voter equality. Public accommodation laws should have been ruled unconstitutional long ago.

  32. Identity groups are starting the slow inevitable infighting and positioning for taxpayer dollars, free shit and utopia…Socialism its whats for Dinner in the House of Representatives.

  33. “While the worst and most paranoid interpretations of this bill are pure culture war pageantry.”

    Back in the 70’s, critics of the ERA claimed that it would result in men in girl’s bathrooms, and even the courts legalizing same sex marriage. And we got that even with the ERA being defeated!

    “The worst and most paranoid interpretations of this bill” are probably too optimistic.

  34. Feelings or not, once again; you cannot protect *both* orientation *and* identity. It’s more fundamental than Heisenberg. Your orientation depends on your partner’s decisions about identity at any given moment. Neither employers, the government, nor person walking down the street will be able to take you at your word for who’s your partner, what your collective orientation is, and what your respective genders are. It’s a critical mass of stupidity that, if crammed into the rest of the CRA will melt down.

    Normally, libertarians would or could be in favor of such things as they would stymie bureaucrats and could make room for greater personal freedom and individuality but, in this situation, it should be clear that the interested parties are specifically opposed to such notions and seek to exploit the induced confusion for personal socio-political gains.

    1. “Your orientation depends on your partner’s decisions about identity at any given moment.”

      No, because you may not know that much about your partner. One of the stranger and more unintuitive gender identities involves a person leading a heterosexual existence for most of the time, but assumes a gay identity when on line. According to you this person would have two identities depending on which partner you ask. And neither partner may understand the full scope of your behaviour.

      ” Neither employers, the government, nor person walking down the street will be able to take you at your word for who’s your partner,”

      Why should you tell the government or employer who your partner is? Or what your sexual preferences are? Is it any of their business?

      ” It’s a critical mass of stupidity that, if crammed into the rest of the CRA will melt down.

      Normally, libertarians would or could be in favor of such things as they would stymie bureaucrats and could make room for greater personal freedom and individuality but, in this situation, it should be clear that the interested parties are specifically opposed to such notions and seek to exploit the induced confusion for personal socio-political gains.”

      I’m not sure what you mean or what you are referring to. Maybe some clarification is in order. What exactly is a critical mass of stupidity? What ‘such things’ are Libertarians typically supporting, and what ‘such notions’ are ‘interested parties’ opposed to?

      mad.causal, you are capable of more precise, less mealy-mouthed writing than this.

      1. According to you this person would have two identities depending on which partner you ask.

        Not me. According to me the person would have one identity based definitively on whether they produced sperm or not and subjectively or conveniently on the general indications of being a person who does so.

        And neither partner may understand the full scope of your behaviour.

        Which is why I said “Neither employers, the government, nor person walking down the street will be able to take you at your word for who’s your partner, what your collective orientation is, and what your respective genders are.”

        There are no legal or scientific time constraints on gender or orientation conversion. You can’t today know that your future self won’t retroactively identify you as the opposite gender. You can’t, today, know your partner’s gender past, present, or future and, therefore, can’t know your orientation.

        Why should you tell the government or employer who your partner is? Or what your sexual preferences are? Is it any of their business?

        Because the law is being written to protect against employment discrimination. You can’t be so stupid as to not know that the EEOC is a thing and that pay discrimination is illegal. You can’t simultaneously protect gay and transgender people from discrimination *and* have no means by which to definitively identify who’s gay or transgendered.

        What exactly is a critical mass of stupidity?

        Trying to protect both sexual orientation and gender identity. I already said this.

        What ‘such things’ are Libertarians typically supporting, and what ‘such notions’ are ‘interested parties’ opposed to?

        When expanding marriage to cover homosexuality a greater space was (supposedly) created for individual liberty. I even agreed that homosexuals should get married so long as marriage as a legal concept was largely dissolved into contract law. However, just as much as with gay marriage if not more so, the motivations of the people leading the trans-rights movement isn’t to win liberty for all as much as to amass power for themselves and privilege for their political tribe. Two notions that libertarians generally oppose.

        1. “According to me the person would have one identity based definitively on whether they produced sperm or not and subjectively or conveniently on the general indications of being a person who does so”

          You can’t be serious. You can’t truly believe there is a sperm producing identity which includes us normal guys, and the other including pre-adolescents of both sexes, women and those unfortunate males who’ve lost the ability due to illness or accident.

          “You can’t be so stupid as to not know that the EEOC is a thing and that pay discrimination is illegal.”

          Im afraid I am that stupid, I don’t know what a EEOC is. But I take exception to your claim that you somehow need to know personal details about someone. If the law states that discrimination on the basis of sexual identity is illegal, it shouldn’t matter if the discriminator is correct at guessing the other’s identity, it’s the discrimination itself that’s illegal.

          “Trying to protect both sexual orientation and gender identity. I already said this.”

          Thanks for taking the trouble to answer fully.

          “However, just as much as with gay marriage if not more so, the motivations of the people leading the trans-rights movement isn’t to win liberty for all as much as to amass power for themselves and privilege for their political tribe. Two notions that libertarians generally oppose.”

          This is mind reading and I doubt you really know the secret motives of non-orthodox sexual people. I don’t think it’s a political tribe either, Different political partisans tend to share the same sexual tastes. You’ll find cross dressers of all political persuasions, for example.

    2. Your orientation depends on your partner’s decisions about identity at any given moment

      You do realize you just defined bisexual people out of existence, right?

      1. Not really—he’s just saying you can never be certain you’re bisexual.

        1. For the sake or argument, let’s say your (absurd) reading was right…

          A person who has gleefully had multiple boyfriends and girlfriends, but strictly in a serially monogamous way, doesn’t know that they’re bisexual. Even if they’re dick-deep in their girlfriend while watching gay porn and trying to talk her into a threesome.

          Yeah, that sounds like mad.casual knows what he’s talking about.

          1. How could you know for sure that your “girlfriend” isn’t a man with a vagina?

            1. I believe if it matters to you you are bisexual.

              If you don’t care you are pansexual.

              Or as comedian Amy Cho put it in a bit about having sex with a girl. “I’m not gay… I’m just horny! Hey where’s my parade? “

  35. There’s a definite pattern today: Everyone else is a panicky snowflake, except ENB. I guess that’s the risk you run when you occasionally have to agree with non-progs

  36. Late but I’ll repeat it anyway. This is a classic example of what happens to all state actions. The problem was trying to ban private discrimination. Stop government discrimination, of course; government created slavery and Jim Crow, and discriminated against women’s legal rights, and those must stop.

    But the minute the government tried to stop discrimination by private people and businesses, it went down the rabbit hole. Much better to leave the bigots out in the open where society could shun them or congratulate them. Anyone who thinks government must ban private discrimination simply has no faith in people or society, so they resort to government guns.

    For economic reasons alone, bigotry is a losing proposition, and for that reason alone will gradually disappear from society. Throwing the government sledgehammer at it is just inviting the government to find other uses for its sledgehammer once that original use is no longer needed. Witness the cake bakers and florists, or forcing nuns to pay for contraceptives and abortions.

    Me, I’d rather the bigots were out in the open so I could shun them and their business. Sure, enough shunning would just make them hide, but it would not be the same as all the subterfuge they engage in to hide from the government sledgehammer.

    “Fluid gender identity” was literally unthinkable twenty years ago. What will the government sledgehammer come down on twenty years from now? Height? Weight? Will some clown decide that clothing sizes are discriminatory? Will all shoes have to cost exactly the same,regardless of whether for babies or basketball players?

    It’s stuff like this that confirms my anarchism. Government is incompetent. There’s not a single thing they can’t fuck up.

    1. ” Government is incompetent. ”

      Yet Liberal societies (including Libertarian ones) rely on government to ensure your rights to free speech and own firearms. Why not rely on government to protect against discrimination?

      1. Because refusing to sell you something or rent to you or be your friend is not harm. Shooting you is harm, whether because of your skin color or religion or any other motivating factor short of true self-defense.

        Why are you damned statists so unclear on the concept of harm? Why do you snowflakes prattle on about hurtful words as equivalent to actual physical violence?

        1. “Why do you snowflakes prattle on about hurtful words as equivalent to actual physical violence?”

          Not sure what you mean. How is preventing you from exercising free speech harming you while denying you shelter on a stormy winter night not harming you? It appears you haven’t thought this through.

          1. If I deny shelter to someone of my own race, is that somehow ok, while denying to someone different is evil?

            Or do you really mean that denying shelter itself is evil, and the bigotry is unrelated? I doubt it; statists love to find linkage of all sorts to support their conclusion.

            Statists always confuse what is wrong with what is immaterial. You don’t think at all.

            1. I see you’ve dropped the ludicrous harm thing and moved on. Good move.

              ” is that somehow ok”

              It’s not OK to deny someone on the basis of something so trivial as race. Where did you get the impression that it was?

          2. The government doesn’t ensure you can exercise free speech.
            The government is prohibited from preventing your free speech.

  37. I’ve heard of “damning with faint praise,” but in this article ENB praises the bill with faint damns.

    She attacks many potential allies who oppose this bill by calling them paranoid opponents of progress. Yeah, there’s no way a man could call himself a woman and get on a woman’s sports team, that’s just crazy talk, fit for a loony bin!

    She fails to mention one of the bill’s worst features, that it specifically overrides the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, so that victims of the bill won’t be able to invoke that pioneering bipartisan law (signed by Bill Clinton!) to defend their right not to make cakes, etc.

    This article spends a lot of tim time socially signalling that, other than ENB and those who agree with her, the opponents of the law are against it for all the wrong reasons.

    1. Sorry, I was wrong, ENB *did* mention the gutting of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. So sorry for the error.

    2. I’d say ‘like a woman’ but really it’s more broadly ‘like a member of the media’; she perpetuates the idea that the bill isn’t an internally inconsistent sham that, by virtue of its feels, can just be wished into fully functioning existence.

      The bill protects (charges the government with protecting) someone’s orientation from workplace discrimination. The only objective way to know someone’s orientation is to know the gender of their partner (who’s presumably not an employee). Whether the other person was an employee or not, the bill prevents the employer from taking action one way or the other based on their gender(s current and/or future).

      They’re overtly trying to enact an unenforceable bill (that openly undermines other protections already in the bill). If they had a bill saying that 1+1=3 and that 3 agencies, one each to regulate 1’s, +’s, =’s, and 3’s, are responsible for monitoring and enforcing the law, nobody would have a problem saying “You couldn’t do that even if you wanted to.” But because it’s transgender and people who identify as their biological gender are just enjoying their privilege we aren’t allowed to recognize such low level logic.

      My favorite part is where she selectively forgets that her bread and butter is repeatedly informing everyone how equality-based protections enshrined into law disproportionately harm (formerly) online female sex workers in favor of writing how the bill *may* be used as a backdoor to social media.

      1. that openly undermines other protections already in the bill

        Sorry, openly undermines other protections in the law.

    3. @Eddy

      She fails to mention one of the bill’s worst features, that it specifically overrides the Religious Freedom Restoration Act […]
      You do realize that’s just codifying precedent, right? The RFRA already doesn’t override non-discrimination laws. If you want it to provide a defense to non-discrimination law violations, you need a bill that explicitly does that, because it currently doesn’t.

      1. As I acknowledged, ENB *did* mention the RFRA issue, and I simply missed her reference to it, which wasn’t her fault at all.

        “You do realize that’s just codifying precedent, right?”

        No, if the RFRA analysis applied, then the person who wants to force you to bake a cake contrary to your religious views would have the burden of showing that compulsory cake-baking is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest.

        How confident are you that you could meet that burden?

        Specifically, explain how compulsory cake-baking passes the RFRA test.

  38. […] as a woman. The unintended (intended?) consequences of such legislation is clear, and many are warning against such a transformative change to the Civil Rights Act of […]

  39. Either we have anti-discrimination laws or we do not.

    If we oppose them, and should on principle, then we are also accepting that there will be more discrimination. Market forces will not solve the whole problem. Libertarians are for other things that have some negative consequences.

    If not then things like this which only expand government intrusion into our lives are inevitable.

    I find libertarians to be the least bigoted and racist people around yet we are accused of such because of skepticism over laws like this one.

    It makes us unpopular but nobody likes us much anyway.

  40. people pretending to be transgender

    Why not just say “transgender”? Of course they’re pretending.

  41. Waste of time. all the problems the country has and they’re trying to create checklists on things that will never pass for 2020 kudos. Both parties are fucked in the head

  42. “Libertarians who don’t fear fading gender norms and who fully desire to see social equality for all people can still see some causes for concern in the legislation, which would drastically extend the federal government’s prerogative to intervene in college life, micromanage private business exchanges, and punish disfavored groups or companies, among other things.”
    Well, fuck yeah! Fading, forming, or full blown it’s not the government’s job to enforce norms by law.

  43. The LP platform advocated repeal of Comstock and Dixiecrat antiabortion laws. Les than 4000 votes (one electoral) later the Supreme court made that plank the Roe v Wade decision. Prohi, Dixiecrat and GOP fanatics instantly began pushing antichoice amendments and the gals retaliated with the ERA, which is more libertarian than the burn-at-stake Republican Amendments. Why not revive the ERA and put this to rest the way Canadians managed?

  44. ¡Jennifer Gonzalez-Colon!

  45. Men, prepare for lines to the bathrooms at all events/venues. i.e. ankle bag and tubing… when you get to the front of the line, dump your bag and head back to your seat. Of course, it will look especially funny with shorts. :-)~

  46. […] Republicans in Congress are preparing their own version of the “Equality Act.” (More about the legislation, which the House is voting on today, here.) […]

  47. I give no fucks about somebody being a tranny… I’ve had tranny friends for 10+ years. But this shit is just out of control. I don’t even have kids yet, but when I do I sure as fuck don’t want people with dongs naked in the womens locker room at some resort or whatever.

    These people need to realize they’re fucking weirdos, and that the world doesn’t need to LOVE and accept their weirdness. I’m a weirdo too in many ways, but don’t expect TSOL “Code Blue” to be playing as background music at Safeway when I’m doing my shopping, because I accept that most normies aren’t into it.

    Just be happy you’re able to live out in the open, even if some people consider you a freak, and move on… Which is the rational behavior deviants should have.

  48. I hope all of these alphabet soup activist’s daughters (if there are any) are forced to room with dudes in college. For all four (five? six?) years.

  49. […] Republicans in Congress are preparing their own version of the “Equality Act.” (More about the legislation, which the House is voting on today, here.) […]

  50. […] Republicans in Congress are preparing their own version of the “Equality Act.” (More about the legislation, which the House is voting on today, here.) […]

  51. The purpose of this bill is to change the legal definition of sex. The EEOC has already expanded sex to “gender identity” on its own initiative. I’m almost certain that this bill is being pushed now because SCOTUS took a Title VII case, the EEOC sued a funeral home over firing a male employee after he announced he would be wearing a skirt to work (out of a tiny number of cases they take, they took this one. This agency is politicised and useless). But, unfortunately for the plaintiff, SCOTUS may rule that “sex” means “sex” in the original Title VII. So, it needs an urgent amendment that “sex” is both a skirt and a “gender identity”. Nothing to do with LGB voters, just pure power trips by the trans-lobby and woke bureaucrats.

  52. House approves sweeping bill to expand gay rights!!
    https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-house-bill-gay-rights-20190517-story.html

    —–
    Now I, who identifies as a totally gay, bi-sexual, bi-racial, transgender, lesbian can take a dump in any women’s room and show my weiner without incident .

  53. […] Republicans in Congress are preparing their own version of the “Equality Act.” (More about the legislation, which the House is voting on today, here.) […]

  54. and the Lord “vomit[ing] us out.

    Well thank the Lord that Pat Robertson is bringing out some of the more obscure Psalms cuz America really needs that wisdom at this time:

    Yea though we walk through the valley of the shadow of death
    We shall fear no evil for our testicles and vajayjays are in the proper place
    And it is altogether fitting and proper that they be so
    For the Lord made a covenant when we were wandering around in the wilderness
    When Mr Potato Head dropped the sack of testicles and vajayjays that he was carrying for the multitudes and started worshipping Baal.
    The Lord heard the sorrows and wailing and confusion of the people who knew not where their genitalia were….

  55. These rules would eliminate battered women’s shelters. They’d have to become battered people’s shelters or shut down. I’m sure there would be many other unintended consequences. Wouldn’t a woman’s business association be prohibited?

    – Jake

  56. […] Among other things, commentators claim that the current version of the legislation would require doctors to perform abortions or sex-change operations despite their religious objections or be used to regulate free speech on social media. […]

  57. […] to an article in Reason, “The Equality Act works by modifying the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing […]

  58. […] to an article in Reason, “The Equality Act works by modifying the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair […]

  59. […] squeeze conscience exemptions hard. All are good reasons to oppose.” More: Scott Shackford, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Hans Bader, and earlier here and […]

  60. […] (the way many non-profits such as the Boy Scouts do). It also allows the federal government to sue religious schools that don’t receive a nickel in taxpayer money. (Federal education laws like Title IX currently […]

Comments are closed.