Thread by @cathydevine56

Maybe not a disaster as apparently this phrase comes from Bostock ruling and:

'As this passage makes perfectly clear, Bostock does not apply to any of the contexts or other statutes where a conflict with women’s sex-based protections might arise.'

womansplaceuk.org/2020/07/02/sex…

https://twitter.com/cathydevine56/status/1352169047744516096

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex and national origin. I agree with prohibiting employment discrimination against lesbian gay and trans people. What I'm uneasy about is the conflation of sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

However, hoping this is the equivalent of the British Equality Acts protected characteristics of sexual orientation and gender reassignment.

I like the look of this bit of the Executive Order:

'prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity ... so long as the laws do not contain sufficient indications to the contrary'

I'd say sport contains sufficient indications to the contrary for starters.

The WPUK link explains Bostock and Title 7 relate to Federal not State law and prior to the Equality Act which is in play at the moment there were no protections for gay and trans people re employment. State law has to interpret 'sufficient indications to the contrary' I guess.

I wonder if these 'sufficient indications to the contrary' are the US equivalent to the British single sex exceptions. Need a lawyer who understands US law.

@ProfWBCarter

@DukeLaw