I have been meaning to post on this important case due to be argued before the US Supreme Court October 8, 2019, but have put it off because it's a bit complicated. I think most of us here would support Stephens' desire to wear appropriate attire regardless of sex stereotypes, but the legal precedent that could be set here is extremely important.
A male person who now identifies as a woman called Aimee Stephens was dismissed from a position at a funeral home because of Stephens' unwillingness to wear the business attire required for Stephens' sex by the employer.(This is not illegal in the United States).
Importantly, Stephens and lawyers have not argued that the different standards for attire based on sex are unconstitutional; instead my understanding is that they have argued that Stephens is indeed a woman based on gender identity, and for that reason is entitled to wear the professional attire expected of women in this industry.
The following recent USA Today article explores the implications for women's and girls' sports, but in fact the decision will have consequences reaching far beyond sports and employment. Women's Liberation Front has filed a friend-of-the-court brief on the side of Harris, in order to argue for the preservation of the legal definition of sex in America.
Since the advent of Title IX — a federal law that expanded athletic and educational opportunities for women — millions of girls and women have benefited from their own teams and chances for growth. But these opportunities risk being redefined and obliterated, because of a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court... The case centers on the question of whether the meaning of the word "sex" in employment law (Title VII) also covers gender identity...Not only should business owners be able to rely on the plain meaning of the law, courts shouldn’t take on Congress’s job and reinvent the meaning of “sex.”
www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2019/09/27/transgender-athletes-supreme-court-sex-equality-column/2421776001/
“Congress knew very well what the word ‘sex’ means when it included that word in the list of categories of people in need of civil rights protections,” said Kara Dansky, who serves on the board of the Women’s Liberation Front. “There is no basis, nor is there any reason, for this Court to hold that sex means anything other than what everyone knows it means.”
WoLF additionally argues that to require an employer, or anyone, to believe and/or state that men can be women violates the First Amendment. “The notion that a man can be a woman, or that a woman can be a man, is nothing other than a belief system, adhered to by a very small segment of society,” said Natasha Chart, the WoLF board Chair. “No one should be required to agree with that belief system, or to use compelled speech to further it.”
womensliberationfront.org/womens-liberation-front-files-friend-of-the-court-brief-in-harris-funeral-homes-v-eeoc-and-aimee-stephens/