Bench Memos

Eric Holder’s Transgendered Mutilation of Title VII

In a remarkable action yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder declared that the “most straightforward reading” of Title VII’s bar on discrimination “because of … sex”—indeed, the “plain meaning” of its text—is that it bars discrimination “based on gender identity, including transgender status,” and that DOJ will henceforth adopt that reading.

In a fog of wordplay divorced from any plausible account of the original meaning of Title VII, Holder asserts that “Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination ‘because of … sex’ encompasses discrimination founded on sex-based considerations, including discrimination based on an employee’s transitioning to, or identifying as, a different sex altogether.” (Emphasis added.)

Holder’s reference to “a different sex” is badly confused and odd. A man who identifies as a woman—yes, even a man who butchers and drugs himself to appear more like a woman—is still a man. Indeed, when anyone points out this elementary biological reality, transgender activists insist that gender is fundamentally different from sex.

Holder states that the federal government’s “approach to this issue has … evolved over time.” (Emphasis added.) That’s his way of acknowledging that his position is directly contrary to the position that DOJ had previously taken. As Christian Adams points out, Holder is instead following the dubious lead of the reckless adventurists at the EEOC. And while Holder states that “courts have reached varying conclusions” on the issue, his citations reveal that he’s adopting the position taken by a federal district judge over that taken by a federal court of appeals.

One controversy that long divided advocates of the bill titled the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, was whether the bill’s prohibitions on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should be extended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Under Holder’s cross-dressing reading of Title VII, that controversy was pointless because Title VII’s “plain meaning” already bars discrimination based on gender identity. Indeed, if Title VII broadly bars discrimination “founded on sex-based considerations,” I don’t see why Holder isn’t also contending that Title VII’s plain meaning bars discrimination based on sexual orientation. But that may just be the next lawless surprise in the offing.

Most Popular

Culture

‘Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself’

It was just one more segment to fill out the hour, and thereby fill the long 24 hours of Saturday’s cable news on November 2. Or so it seemed. Navy SEAL Mike Ritland was on the Fox News program Watters World to talk to Jesse Watters about trained German shepherds like the one used in the raid that found ... Read More
Film & TV

The Manly Appeal of Ford v Ferrari

There used to be a lot of overlap between what we think of as a Hollywood studio picture (designed to earn money) and an awards movie (designed to fill the trophy case, usually with an accompanying loss of money). Ford v Ferrari is a glorious throwback to the era when big stars did quality movies about actual ... Read More
White House

Impeachment and the Broken Truce

The contradiction at the center of American politics in Anno Domini 2019 is this: The ruling class does not rule. The impeachment dog-and-pony show in Washington this week is not about how Donald Trump has comported himself as president (grotesquely) any more than early convulsions were about refreshed ... Read More
Politics & Policy

ABC Chief Political Analyst: GOP Rep. Stefanik a ‘Perfect Example’ of the Failures of Electing Someone ‘Because They Are a Woman’

Matthew Dowd, chief political analyst for ABC News, suggested that Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) was elected due to her gender after taking issue with Stefanik's line of questioning during the first public impeachment hearing on Wednesday. “Elise Stefanik is a perfect example of why just electing ... Read More
U.S.

What Happened to California Republicans?

From 1967 to 2019, Republicans controlled the California governorship for 31 of 52 years. So why is there currently not a single statewide Republican officeholder? California also has a Democratic governor and Democratic supermajorities in both houses of the state legislature. Only seven of California’s 53 ... Read More