Eric Holder Misreads Act: Gender Identity, Sex Not Same

Eric HolderEricHolder is trying to claim that gender identity and gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he says that "sex" in the Act means "gender identity." However, if gender identity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 means "sex," why has "gender identity" been added to so many laws that also already said "sex"? In addition, the Act defines "sex" thusly:

(k) The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title [section 703(h)] shall be interpreted to permit otherwise. This subsection shall not require an employer to pay for health insurance benefits for abortion, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or except where medical complications have arisen from an abortion: Provided, That nothing herein shall preclude an employer from providing abortion benefits or otherwise affect bargaining agreements in regard to abortion.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Where does gender identity enter in there? It doesn't.

If the government of the US wants to make gender identity a nationally protected classification, then it needs to make a law that does that while keeping in mind that freedom of religion is already protected and some of the cultural so-called "liberal" things that are being pushed by people such as Eric Holder are unacceptable under many religions.

So, unless the US government wants things that constitute sexual anarchy to trump all religions and takes the necessary legislative steps to mandate that (meaning amend the US Constitution to strike out the free-exercise clause), it will face internal hypocrisy forever.

This post in no way should be taken as an indication that I lack compassion for those who are, or have been, troubled by personal, internal gender-identity issues.

Tom1

Tom Usher

The issue I have is with normalizing it rather than keeping the understanding that there's something wrong, something went wrong, the way we treat other problems, whether mental or physical or both. We don't discriminate on account of certain "disabilities" (or whatever the politically correct term is now) and rightfully so. We do discriminate on account of others, such as criminal behaviors, which are also usually mental problems depending upon the particular law. Some laws are wrong.

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.