June 15, 2020

My Issue with the Excellent LGBTQ Civil Rights Law Supreme Court Decision

In response to this New York Times article, "Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers, Supreme Court Rules," by Adam Liptak, June 15, 2020, from where I also got this picture.

I am absolutely thrilled with this decision by the Supreme Court, and pleasantly surprised by Roberts and Gorsuch joining the majority opinion. But it pains me greatly to have to agree with the horrible Alito and Kavanaugh that "sex" does not legally cover "sexual orientation" or "gender." I would much prefer that those be added to the 1964 law as separate protections.

Sexual orientation, or sexuality, the direction of love and attraction, is not sex, which refers to physical biology. My sexual orientation is homosexual, because I am attracted to members of my own male sex (and my own male gender). Although I suppose an unproven case could be made for genetics being the determining factor in sexuality, this is uncertain enough to separate sexuality from biological sex.

My gender, the socio-psychological-spiritual identification aspect of the gender spectrum, is also heavily freighted toward male alignment for me, but again, gender is not sex. There are those of male sex and female gender, and vice versa, and a huge range in between and outside that spectrum.

Sex, sexuality, and gender are all entirely deserving protection in this civil rights employment law, but it is reductive to consider them the same thing. I certainly applaud this decision to broaden the legal shield, but I hope more accurate specification will be forthcoming.

No comments: