Companies, especially bigger ones, have adopted the religion of gender ideology that radical leftists are pushing these days. It comes in many forms, like forcing you to use preferred pronouns, forcing you to talk about micro-aggressions, and forcing you to celebrate and worship according to the LGBTQ+ liturgical calendar.

Biden and his team view the cause of gender ideology, and transgenderism in particular, as the modern civil rights movement, so they’ve passed “anti-discrimination” laws everywhere. With Title IX, they’ve sought to replace women by allowing men claiming to be women to compete in their sports. In the workplace, they are using the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to enforce their radical agenda on all Americans.

Under a new EEOC proposal, sexual orientation and gender identity are being added to sex and race discriminations. The EEOC cites the Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia ruling in 2020 as the impetus for this weaponization. In that ruling, SCOTUS ruled that firing someone on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is unlawful according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. But the EEOC proposal is now disingenuously lumping in sexual orientation and gender identity to pacify the dangerous gender identity cult.

How does the EEOC define workplace discrimination for gender identity? Here is the language of the amendment:

Examples include epithets regarding sexual orientation or gender identity; physical assault; harassment because an individual does not present in a manner that would stereotypically be associated with that person’s gender; intentional and repeated use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s gender identity (misgendering); or the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity.

This, like so many other overreaches by the transgender activists, is another example of using the power and prestige as an “oppressed” minority to infringe on the rights and safety of others.

Preferred pronouns are a major part of the power play. They are only used to reinforce the lie that a person tells him or herself, and the preferred pronoun enforcer is denying physical reality. There is no such thing as a man being a woman on the inside or a woman being a man on the inside. Chromosomally, you either are a woman or you aren’t. Chromosomally, you are either a man or you aren’t. Male and female are determined by biology. To claim that your soul is a different gender than your body is a religious claim called gnostic dualism, and it is heretical.

There is a difference between being polite and going along with a lie. Forcing someone to lie in the name of politeness (or, in this case, so they will not be fired for “workplace misgendering”) is against many people’s religious and moral beliefs. In other words, it is a violation of religious liberty.

Then there is the issue of allowing someone who is the opposite sex to use the “sex-segregated” bathroom. This infringes on the rights of both men and women. A woman’s right to safety in the workplace is violated when a man is allowed to use her bathroom. There is a good reason that workplaces had segregated bathrooms in the first place. A man is physically able to overpower most women, and a bathroom is where a woman is most vulnerable. On the flip side, a woman using the men’s bathroom ups the odds that the confused woman will claim harassment from the men whom she is sharing that space with, or claim that her own physical safety is compromised in the men’s room.

Lastly, there is the general religious infringement that this amendment by the EEOC would present. If a company is a religious organization, is it required to hire someone who is adamantly against the core values of the company? Seems like the answer should be “No.”

This proposed amendment to federal law regarding sex discrimination and harassment in the workplace is a travesty that infringes on the rights of others for the sake of a small minority of sexually confused individuals. In essence, it declares transgenderism and its followers’ rights more valid than anyone else’s.

As The Daily Signal’s Tyler O'Niel points out, “If the rule faces opposition in the courts, it may force the Supreme Court to reconsider the Bostock ruling.” Bostock was a miscarriage of justice and deserves another look by SCOTUS because its consequences are going to be even more calamitous as trans activists seek to grab more and more power.